Appeal No. 1997-0975 Page 4
Application No. 08/389,303
device comprising two components into an animal to bind the
device to bone via contact therewith.
An anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is established when
a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or under
the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed
invention. See RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730
F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.), cert. dismissed
sub nom., Hazeltine Corp. v. RCA Corp., 468 U.S. 1228 (1984).
Additionally, the law of anticipation does not require that the
reference teach what the appellants are 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) (and overruled in part on another issue), SRI Int’l
v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1125, 227 USPQ
577, 588 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Jones discloses a method including the step of implanting,
in an animal, a prosthetic device comprising a plastic material
including a first poly (ethylene glycol) component and a second
water stabilizing component such as an ester, urethane or amide
containing unit such that the prosthetic device bonds to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007