Appeal No. 97-3199
Application No. 08/273,767
claimed invention. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79,
31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 1994), In re Spada, 911 F.2d
705, 708,
15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). However, the law of anticipation
does not require that the reference teach specifically what an
appellant has disclosed and is claiming but only that the
claims on appeal "read on" something disclosed in the
reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the
reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760,
772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983); cert. denied, 465
U.S. 1026 (1984).
In the present case, we find that the mixing and
deflection unit of claim 1 is readable upon the static mixing
apparatus disclosed by Knief. More specifically, as we see it,
the content of claim 1 is addressed by the Knief apparatus,
with its upstream 31, 48 and downstream 50 flow directions, as
disclosed (column 6, lines 54 through 68) and depicted (Figure
1). Of particular importance, is the patentee’s express
indication (column 6, lines 20 through 28) that it is within
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007