Appeal No. 1996-4174 Page 5
Application No. 08/134,204
internal diameter of the tubular reactor (18, Figs. 1 and 4-7)
of Binning being embraced by the claimed language, appellants
express the viewpoint that the "...abrupt bends..." as used in
Binning "...will generally incorporate significant changes in
the internal diameter of the reactor along the path of flow of
the reaction mixture" (brief, page 5). We disagree.
As noted by the examiner (answer, page 4), the coiled
tubular reactor (18) of Binning is not disclosed or shown to
have any substantial internal diameter variations. While
Binning may not explicitly describe the diameter of the
reactor (18) in the same words as used by appellants in their
claims, such is not required for the Binning reference to
fully anticipate the claimed subject matter within the meaning
of § 102(b). The law of anticipation does not require that
the reference teach what the appellant is claiming, but only
that the claims on appeal “read on” something disclosed in the
reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the
reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760,
772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983) cert. denied, 465 U.S.
1026 (1984).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007