Appeal No. 98-1936
Application 08/316,933
when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly
or under principles of inherency, each and every element of a
claimed invention. See RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data
Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 221 USPQ 385 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The law of anticipation does not require that the reference
teach what the appellant is teaching or has disclosed, but
only that the claim or claims on appeal 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, 218 USPQ 781 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Like appellants, we find that Wiesner fails to disclose
or teach a medical device like that set forth in claims 1
through 11 and 21 through 28 on appeal. The examiner’s
position (answer, page 4) that the sealing element (15) of
Wiesner somehow meets the structure of the medical device of
appellants’ claims 1 through 11 and 21 through 28 is simply
not understood. The examiner has not read the language of any
of the independent claims on appeal on the sealing element
(15) of Wiesner and we see no way to do so either. The mere
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007