Appeal No. 1997-3709
Application 08/582,034
(B1). Accordingly we hold that the Figure 4 embodiment of
Soltis anticipates claim 3.
Claim 4 depends from claim 3 and adds that (A2) > (B2).
The Figure 4 embodiment of Soltis includes a multitude of
first axially extending dimensions (A2) and a multitude of
second axially extending dimensions (B2) such that for
selected pairs of (A2) and (B2), the additional requirement of
claim 4 is satisfied. Accordingly, claim 4 “reads on” the 8
Figure 4 embodiment of Soltis. It follows that the Figure 4
embodiment of Soltis anticipates claim 4.
Claim 5 depends from claim 3 and adds that the passageway
defines a generally uniform cross-sectional area throughout
its radial length. Claim 6 depends from claim 3 and adds that
the disk includes a plurality of passageways. These
limitations are clearly met by the Figure 4 embodiment of
Soltis.
8The law of anticipation does not require that the
reference teach specifically what an appellant has disclosed
and 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).
-17-
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007