Ex parte ROMAN - Page 4




          Appeal No. 2000-1479                                       Page 4           
          Application No. 08/915,355                                                  


               We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 3, 5 to               
          9, 14 to 19 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).                                


               A claim is anticipated only if each and 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."                                                      


               Claims 1 to 3, 5 to 9, 14 to 19 and 23 each include the                
          limitation that the bag slitter assembly include horizontally-              
          disposed canard-like blades wherein the blades are disposed                 







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007