Appeal No. 97-0925 Page 9
Application No. 08/328,159
intersection of the pole and the top of the hemispherical cap
utilized as a reference point denoting the north star or Polaris.
A covering is secured to the frame and a plurality of markings
are selectively applied to the covering using Polaris as the
reference point.
For the reasons set forth by the appellant (brief, pp. 4-6
and 14-17), we conclude that claims 1 and 9 are not anticipated
by Rowsey. We agree with the appellant that the claimed
configuration (i.e., a cylindrical shape with a hemispherically
or dome shaped top) does not "read on" Rowsey's configuration 2
(i.e., a frustrum of a cone shape with a hemispherically or dome
shaped top). Since each element of claims 1 and 9 is not found,
either expressly described or under principles of inherency, in
Rowsey, the examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
2The inquiry as to whether a reference anticipates a claim
must focus on what subject matter is encompassed by the claim and
what subject matter is described by the reference. As set forth
by the court in Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760,
772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S.
1026 (1984), it is only necessary for the claims to "'read on'
something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of
the claim are found in the reference, or 'fully met' by it."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007