Appeal No. 98-2124 Page 6
Application No. 08/454,898
The appellants argue that the claims under consideration
are not anticipated since Biechler does not address the
specific problems which they address. We must point out,
however, that 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. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v.
Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 633, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1054 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). Moreover, 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).
With respect to independent claim 1 the appellants contend
that the tail portions of the spring contact arms 75,91 of
Biechler are disposed entirely within the housing, rather than
extending "from a first surface of housing" as claimed. This
argument is not commensurate in scope with the claimed subject
matter. That is, this limitation does not require that the
tail portions extend from the exterior surface of the housing
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007