Appeal No. 98-0585
Application No. 08/638,526
Cir. 1989)). Moreover, anticipation by a prior art reference
does not require either the inventive concept of the claimed
subject matter or the recognition of inherent properties that
may be possessed by the prior art reference. See Verdegaal
Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 633, 2 USPQ2d
1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1987). A prior art reference
anticipates the subject matter of a claim when that reference
discloses every feature of the claimed invention, either
explicitly or inherently (see In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473,
1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and Hazani v.
Int’l Trade Comm’n, 126 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1358, 1361
(Fed. Cir. 1997)); however, the law of anticipation does not
require that the reference teach what the appellant is
claiming, but only that the claims on appeal "read on"
something disclosed in the reference (see Kalman v. Kimberly-
Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir.
1983)).
Here, representative claim 1 broadly sets forth that the
cylinders have a first bore "having a diameter greater than
the diameter of the piston" and a flange "having a diameter
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007