Appeal No. 2000-1622
Application No. 08/752,445
because it is "capable of being placed within the spacing of
studs of a generic wall" (answer, page 8).
"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, the law
of anticipation does not require that the reference "teach"
what the applicant teaches, but only that the claim "read on"
something disclosed in the reference. Celeritas technologies,
Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ
1516, 1522 (Fed. Cir. 1998), cert denied, 119 S.Ct. 874
(1999).
Appellant in arguing that Groeniger does not suggest
putting his invention in a wall, asserts that Groeniger
teaches "providing the wall by four cabinets integrated
together "(brief, page 30). We do not agree. In Fig. 3 of
Groeniger, the kitchen (upper half of drawing) and bathroom
(lower half of drawing) are shown as being separated by a wall
(broken lines), and the patentee discloses on page 3, col. 2,
lines 45 to 50, that Fig. 3 shows as arrangement of "a kitchen
and a bath room in adjacency, wherein a partition of the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007