Appeal No. 1998-1533 Page 23
Application No. 08/411,202
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Feldmann.
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.),
cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). A prior art reference
anticipates the subject of a claim when the reference
discloses every feature of the claimed invention, either
explicitly or inherently (see Hazani v. Int'l Trade Comm'n,
126 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1358, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and
RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d
1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984)); however, the
law of anticipation does not require that the reference teach
what the appellants are 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), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026
(1984)).
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007