Appeal No. 1998-3015 Page 4
Application No. 08/790,373
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 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984), it is only necessary for the
claims to "'read on' something disclosed in the reference,
i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the reference,
or 'fully met' by it."
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 7-8) that the
arrangement of chamber ports as set forth in claim 6 which
minimizes the amount of unfiltered liquid passed out during a
flow reversal is not taught by Sakai. We agree. Claim 6
includes the limitation that the chamber walls form first and
second chamber ports that "open respectively to said first and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007