Appeal No. 98-1538
Application No. 08/698,470
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), cert denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984)).
Here, while claim 1 broadly recites a "forward" plane,
there is simply no claim limitation which requires the forward
plane to extend to the forward edge of the shoe as argued. 4
This being the case, we agree with the examiner that plane 27
of Fox can be considered to be a "forward" plane as broadly
claimed since this plane is clearly "forward" of rear plane
30. As to the appellants' contention that the forward plane
is "specifically defined" in the specification as "extending
4It is well settled that features not claimed may not be
relied upon in support of patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d
1344, 1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007