Appeal No. 2000-0327 Page 5
Application No. 08/745,330
713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984), it is only necessary for the
claims to "'read on' something disclosed in the reference,
i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the reference,
or 'fully met' by it." While all elements of the claimed
invention must appear in a single reference, additional
references may be used to interpret the anticipating reference
and to shed light on its meaning, particularly to those
skilled in the art at the relevant time. See
Studiengesellschaft Kohle v. Dart Indus., Inc., 726 F.2d 724,
726-727, 220 USPQ 841, 842-843 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellant asserts (brief, page 4) that the examiner's
rejection is predicated on the erroneous conclusion that
Thompson discloses a monitor which determines the volume of
flow.
The examiner's position (answer, page 4) is that "means3
for determining a selected volume of water has flowed through
the pipe has been continuous during a predetermined period of
3 The examiner refers to the rejection set forth in the final rejection
and then repeats the rejection, verbatim, in the brief. Accordingly, we will
refer to the brief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007