Appeal No. 1997-4046 Page 5
Application No. 08/040,117
above the closure valve, to receive the overflowing fluid. The
sample liquid is pumped through the needle by a bladder pump.
The Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
Anticipation established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, either expressly or under the principles
of inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention
(see In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480-1481, 31 USPQ2d 1671,
1675 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). It does not require either the
inventive concept of the claimed subject matter or recognition
of inherent properties that may be possessed by the reference
(see Verdegaal Brothers Inc. v. Union Oil Co. Of California,
814 F.2d 628, 633, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1987)) or
that the reference teaches what the applicant is claiming, but
only that the claim 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)).
Independent claim 28 is directed to a bladder pump, and
stands rejected as being anticipated by Niehaus, which
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007