Appeal No. 2000-0450
Application No. 09/047,048
forth the basis for his conclusion that claims 10, 12, 13, 15,
17 and 20 are anticipated by Matthysse. Appellants argue, in
essence, that there is no anticipation because independent
claims 10 and 12 are directed to an animal waterer, not a high
voltage bus line, and recite a locking portion intended to
allow vertical movement or adjustment of the pipe, not removal
of the clamp from the pipe (brief, page 4). Also, in their
reply brief (pages 2
to 4) appellants contend that Matthysse does not disclose a
pipe for carrying water, a locking portion that allows
vertical movement of the pipe, or a bracket for attaching the
assembly to a structure.
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, a reference need not "teach" what the
application teaches in order to anticipate the claims, as long
as the claims "read on" something disclosed in the reference.
Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ
781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007