Appeal No. 1999-0512
Application No. 08/701,979
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 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).
Claim 1 is drawn to an assembly for delivery and
deployment of an inflation expandable stent comprising, inter
alia, a catheter, an annular collar, an expandable balloon
mounted over the collar, a stent, the collar abutting the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007