Appeal No. 97-3983
Application 08/506,851
(Fed. Cir. 1984). It is not necessary that the reference teach what the subject application
teaches, but only that the claim read on something disclosed in the reference, i.e., that all
of the limitations in the claim be found in or fully met by the reference. Kalman v. Kimberly
Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 771, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465
U.S. 1026 (1984).
The appellant contends that the anticipation rejection of claims 13 and 17 is
unsound because Smith does not meet the limitation in claim 13 requiring the receptor
means to be “elastomeric” or the limitation in claim 17 requiring a “mobile sanitation cart”
(see pages 5 and 7 in the brief). As indicated above, however, Smith teaches that the
receptor means or funnel 20 disclosed therein may be made of rubber, a well known
elastomeric material. The fact that Smith also discloses that the funnel may be made of
other materials which are not elastomeric does not in any way diminish or negate the
teaching of rubber as urged by the appellant. It is also not evident, nor has the appellant
cogently explained, why the recitation in claim 17 of the “mobile sanitation cart” does not
read on Smith’s vehicle mounted apparatus. The Smith apparatus is mobile, is concerned
2
with sanitation, and is a “cart” as broadly recited in the claim.
Thus, the appellant’s position that the subject matter recited in claims 13 and 17 is
2 Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (G. & C. Merriam Co. 1977) defines “cart”
as meaning “a small wheeled vehicle.”
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007