Appeal No. 97-4119 Page 4
Application No. 08/369,545
OPINION
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). Nor is it
required 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).
Claim 1 is directed to a method of creating a space
endoscopically “at an obstructed site in anatomical tissue,”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007