Appeal No. 1997-3148
Application 08/408,088
axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be
found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ
136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH
v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ
481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984). "Anticipation is established only
when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or
under principles of inherency, each and every element of a
claimed invention." RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys.,
Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.),
cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984), citing Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984). The
prior art disclosure need not be expressed in order to
anticipate. Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus.,
Inc., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369, 21 USPQ2d 1321, 1328 (Fed. Cir.),
cert. denied, 506 U.S. 817 (1992).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007