Appeal No. 1999-2789
Application No. 08/805,633
Kamiya is hardened in situ and is to remain in place
permanently closing the defect.
An anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is established
when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly
or under principles of inherency, each and every element or
limitation of a claimed invention. See In re Schreiber, 128
F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and
RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d
1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). However, we
observe that the law of anticipation does not require that the
reference teach what the appellant has disclosed 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). Since representative
claim 140 on appeal uses the alternative language "curing or
hardening" (emphasis ours), it is our conclusion that
appellants' claim 140 on appeal is clearly readable on the
method in Kamiya, at least as to the embodiment of Kamiya
where the closing plug is formed of a shape memory polymeric
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007