Appeal No. 1998-2026
Application No. 08/508,738
teachings, and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the3
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
Initially, we note that anticipation under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is established only when a single prior art reference
discloses, either expressly or under principles of inherency,
each and every element of a claimed invention. See In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed.
Cir. 1997); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d
1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708,
15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Sys., 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 specifically what an
appellant has disclosed and is claiming but only that the
claims on appeal "read on" something disclosed in the
3In our evaluation of the applied references, we have
considered all of the disclosures of each document for what it
would have fairly taught one of ordinary skill in the art.
See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA
1966).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007