Appeal No. 1999-0348 Page 6
Application No. 08/663,471
2 USPQ2d 1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827
(1987). A prior art reference anticipates the subject of a
claim when the 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) and RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data
Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
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)).
Claim 1 recites a chemical delivery system comprising,
inter alia, a can, a thermally activated chemical, and an
electrical heater assembly. Claim 1 further recites that the
electrical heater assembly includes a resistance heater wire
connected with a primary thermal cut-off device and that the
resistance heater wire be comprised of a material "having a
melting temperature defining a secondary thermal cut-off."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007