Appeal No. 1998-3004 Page 6
Application No. 08/290,590
Cir. 1984)); however, 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), cert. denied,
465 U.S. 1026 (1984)).
Schlesinger discloses a poison liquid container. As
shown in Figures 1 and 2, the poison liquid container includes
a base 1 having an upstanding annular wall 2, a cylindrical
wick 5 disposed in a recess 4 formed in the base 1, a fringe 6
extending from an intermediate portion of the wick 1 and lying
on the
conical upper surface of the base 1, and a cover 7.
Schlesinger teaches that poison liquid is poured into the
cylindrical wick 5 and thereafter trapped between the base 1,
the cover 7 and the wick 5.
All the claims under appeal recite an insect bait station
including a "selectively breakable reservoir" for a toxicant.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007