Appeal No. 2000-0078
Application No. 08/837,242
the recitations concerning the window sash and window jamb
must be given weight.
It is fundamental that in order to anticipate a claim, “
a prior art reference must disclose every limitation of the
claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently.” In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed.
Cir. 1997). However, “[i]t is well settled that the
recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not
make a claim to that old product patentable.” Id. The law of
anticipation does not require that a reference “teach” what
appellant teaches, but only that the claims “read on”
something disclosed in the reference. Kalman v. Kimberly-
Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 722,
218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S.
1026 (1984).
Applying these principles with regard to the recitations
in
claim 26, it is evident that, as outlined above, Miilu
discloses
a cam member 236, a keeper 234, and a drive means consisting
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007