Appeal No. 97-3294
Application 08/408,225
The law of anticipation does not require that a
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).
With the above in mind, we conclude that the content
of claims 14 and 15 reads on the teaching of Blom. In
particular, and using the language of appellants’ claims, we
recognize the esophageal end 402 of Blom as a resiliently
deflectable device body having an insertion cross section
(Figure 14) which is insufficient to fill the esophagus (an
opening in a human body) and having a larger use cross section
(Fig. 15); the retainer 416 being soluble in fluid (column 10,
lines 10 through 12), i.e., the retainer is removable. In
light of the above, we affirm the rejection of claims 14 and
15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
The argument advanced by appellants does not
persuade us as to the patentability of claims 14 and 15.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007