Appeal No. 1998-1912
Application No. 08/780,744
separating successive blanks for a body of coherent blanks and
transferring said successive blanks into discrete receptacles.
Anticipation is established when a single prior art
reference discloses, either expressly or under the principles
of inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention.
See RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d
1440, 1444, 221, USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Anticipation
by a prior art reference 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 Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 633,
2 USPQ2d 1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827
(1987). Nor is it required that the reference teach what the
applicant is claiming, but only that the claim on appeal
“reads 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).
Given these principles, the examiner’s determination that
the subject matter recited in claim 1 is anticipated by
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007