Appeal No. 96-0948 Page 4
Application No. 08/262,400
examiner and the appellants as set forth in the Answer and the
Brief.
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) and In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655,
1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 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 law of anticipation does not
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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007