Appeal No. 1998-1642 Page 3
Application No. 08/541,894
(Paper No. 16, filed December 15, 1997) for the appellants’
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The rejection in this case is under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We initially note that a claim is anticipated only if each and
every element as set forth in the claim is found, either
expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
reference. Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d
628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 484
U.S. 827 (1987). The inquiry as to whether a reference
anticipates a claim must focus on what subject matter is
encompassed by the claim and what subject matter is described
by the reference. As set forth by the court in Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007