Appeal No. 1999-0402
Application No. 08/567,385
The § 102 rejection of claims 8, 18, 22, 23, 25 and 28
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 RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data
Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir. 1984), cert. dismissed sub nom., Hazeltine Corp. v. RCA
Corp., 468 U.S. 1228 (1984). The law of anticipation,
however, does not require that the reference teach what the
appellants are 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, 722, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984), (and
overruled in part on another issue) 775 F.2d 1107, 227 USPQ
577 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Moreover, anticipation by a prior art
reference does not require either the inventive concept of the
claimed subject matter or the recognition of inherent
properties that may be possessed by the prior art reference.
See Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil of Calif., 814 F.2d 628,
633, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007