Appeal No. 1997-4385
Application No. 08/288,864
v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 126 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1358,
1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data
Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir. 1984)); however, 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 (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)).
Claim 19 on appeal is written in Jepson format. Ex parte
Jepson, 1917 Dec. Comm’r Pats. 62, 243 Off. Gaz. 525 (1917).
When a claim is written in Jepson format, the subject matter
recited in its preamble (leading up to the claim language “the
improvement”) is impliedly admitted to be old in the art. In
re Ehrreich, 590 F.2d 902, 909, 200 USPQ 504, 510 (CCPA 1979).
The appellant’s “improvement” comprises:
a solids deflector extending into the chamber from
the other end wall opposite the one end wall
[containing the outlet opening] for preventing the
separated particles from bouncing off the other end
wall and becoming re-entrained in the separated
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007