Appeal No. 98-2122 Page 6
Application No. 08/607,886
1989)) and limitations from a pending application's
specification will not be read into the claims (Sjolund v.
Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581-82, 6 USPQ2d 2020, 2027 (Fed. 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 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)). It is also well settled that if a prior art
device inherently possesses the capability of functioning in
the manner claimed, anticipation exists regardless of whether
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007