Appeal No. 98-2417
Application 08/570,894
agreement with the examiner’s position as set forth on pages 4
and 5 of the answer regarding claims 1 through 10 on appeal,
but we do not agree with the examiner’s position on page 6 of
the answer with respect to claim 11 on appeal.
An anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is established
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 Sys.
Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (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 "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, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983),
cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Like the examiner, we find that Rudick discloses a
beverage container or apparatus (Fig. 1) which comprises an
outer body (11) providing a first compartment and an inner
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007