Appeal No. 97-1445 Page 7
Application No. 08/202,254
that there actually be mortar joining two adjacent building
units. While we acknowledge that Kaplan does not teach or
suggest the application of mortar to join adjacent building
blocks, we note that it is not necessary that the reference
teach what the subject application teaches to anticipate a
claim, 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, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir.
1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984). We, like the
examiner, find that the curvilinear building blocks of Kaplan
are capable of accepting mortar, either on the yin yang
elements (44) or on other portions of the side ends (39), to
join adjacent blocks. Therefore, we find that they meet the
"joinable to another masonry building unit with mortar"
limitation of independent claim 19.
Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing rejection of
independent claim 19, and of claims 7, 16 and 18 which stand
or fall therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Kaplan.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007