Appeal No. 1999-0215
Application No. 08/530,282
determination which follows.
This panel of the board reverses the examiner’s rejection
of claims 1 through 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Our reasoning
in support of this conclusion appears below.
Initially, we recognize that an anticipation under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, either expressly or under the principles
of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention.
See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed.
Cir. 1990) and RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems,
Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The law of anticipation, however, does not require that the
reference teach what the appellant is 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).
Appellants’ claim 1 is drawn to a sheet metal pulley
comprising, inter alia, a base part which defines an axial
direction and a cylindrical peripheral wall integrally formed
therewith, with the cylindrical peripheral wall having an
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007