Ex parte CHENG - Page 4




          Appeal No. 1999-0284                                       Page 4           
          Application No. 08/721,666                                                  


                                       OPINION                                        
               In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given                 
          careful consideration to the appellant's specification and                  
          claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the                      
          respective positions articulated by the appellant and the                   
          examiner.  As a consequence of our review, we make the                      
          determinations which follow.                                                


               A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as               
          set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or                        
          inherently described, in a single prior art reference.                      
          Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2                 
          USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827                   
          (1987).  The inquiry as to whether a reference anticipates a                
          claim must focus on what subject matter is encompassed by the               
          claim and what subject matter is described by the reference.                
          As set forth by the court in Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.,                
          713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.                
          denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984), it is only necessary for the                  
          claims to "'read on' something disclosed in the reference,                  









Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007