Appeal No. 2000-0204
Application No. 08/512,068
holding grate be in the same shipping container as the candles
and does not require that the wick holding grate be oriented
in any particular relationship to the candles.
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). While it is true
that there is nothing in the Bolinger reference which
expressly indicates that the wick holding element (36) may be
used in the manner set forth in appellant's claim 13, i.e.,
shipped in a shipping container along with the candles, as we
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007