Appeal No. 98-0111
Application No. 08/290,213
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
The guidance provided by our reviewing court with regard
to the matter of anticipation is as follows: Anticipation is
established only when a single prior art reference discloses,
either expressly or under the principles of inherency, each
and every element of the claimed invention. See In re
Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480-1481, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed.
Cir. 1994). Anticipation by a prior art reference does not
require either the inventive concept of the claimed subject
matter or recognition of inherent properties that may be
possessed by the reference. See Verdegaal Brothers Inc. v.
Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 633, 2 USPQ2d 1051,
1054 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Nor does it require that the reference
teach what the applicant is claiming, but only that the claim
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). It is only necessary that the reference include
structure capable of performing the recited function in order
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007