Appeal No. 2000-1475 Page 7
Application No. 08/844,016
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, i.e., all limitations of the claim
are found in the reference, or 'fully met' by it." Thus, in
effect, a prima facie case of anticipation is made out
whenever a reference is shown to contain a disclosure which is
specific as to every element of the rejected claims.
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1208
(Seventh Edition, Rev. 1, Feb. 2000) provides (p. 1200-15)
that for a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the examiner's
answer, or single prior action, shall explain why the rejected
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007