Appeal No. 98-1204
Application No. 08/609,551
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). The reference need not teach what the
applicant is claiming, all that is required is 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).
Claims 1, 4, 6 and 7 stand rejected as being anticipated
by Nickerson, which discloses an elongated spreader bar body
A. The bar is provided with apertures H for receiving cords.
While as pictured in Figure 1 the Nickerson spreader bar
body is oriented so that it is curved vertically, we agree
with the examiner’s conclusion that the claim language reads
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007