Appeal No. 2000-0305 Page 8
Application No. 08/887,453
The appellant argues (brief, p. 12) that Andersen does
not disclose stretching and inverting only that portion of the
casing that covers an end of the article to cover and uncover
the end of an article as recited in claim 11. We find this
argument unpersuasive since we find ourselves in agreement
with the examiner that Andersen's device is inherently capable
of stretching and inverting only that portion of the casing
that covers an end of the article to cover and uncover the end
of an article. In that regard, the prior art reference need
not expressly disclose each claimed element in order to
anticipate the claimed invention. See Tyler Refrigeration v.
Kysor Indus. Corp., 777 F.2d 687, 689, 227 USPQ 845, 846-847
(Fed. Cir. 1985). Rather, if a claimed element (or elements)
is inherent in a prior art reference, then that element (or
elements) is disclosed for purposes of finding anticipation.
See Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d at
631-33, 2 USPQ2d at 1052-54.
It is well settled that the burden of establishing a
prima facie case of anticipation resides with the Patent and
Trademark Office (PTO). See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007