Appeal No. 2000-0652 Page 5
Application No. 08/868,774
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as
set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or
inherently described, in a single prior art reference.
Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2
USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827
(1987). It is well established that an anticipation rejection
cannot be predicated on an ambiguous reference. Thus,
statements and drawings in a reference relied on to prove
anticipation must be so clear and explicit that those skilled
in the art will have no difficulty in ascertaining their
meaning. See In re Turlay, 304 F.2d 893, 899, 134 USPQ 355,
360 (CCPA 1962). Furthermore, under principles of inherency,
when a reference is silent about an asserted inherent
characteristic, it must be clear that the missing descriptive
matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the
reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of
ordinary skill. Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d
1264, 1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 1991). As the
court stated in In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581, 212 USPQ
323, 326 (CCPA 1981)(quoting Hansgirg v. Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212,
214, 40 USPQ 665, 667 (CCPA 1939)):
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007