Appeal No. 2000-2016 Page 4
Application No. 09/209,837
believe, however, that the additional language suggested by the examiner would be an
improvement.
This rejection is not sustained.
The Rejection Under Section 102
Claim 1 stands rejected as being anticipated by Soussloff. Anticipation is
established only when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or under the
principles of inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention. See, for
example, In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480-1481, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir.
1994). We find ourselves in agreement with the examiner that the subject matter recited in
claim 1 is anticipated by Soussloff. Our reasoning follows.
We initially wish to point out that claim 1 recites “an adapter” for attaching a
grenade launcher to the barrel of a firearm; the claim does not positively set forth the
grenade launcher or the firearm barrel. This is important, for anticipation by a prior art
reference does not require either the inventive concept of the claimed subject matter or
recognition of inherent properties that may be possessed by the reference (Verdegaal
Brothers Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 633, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1054
(Fed. Cir. 1987)) nor what the applicant is claiming, but only that the claim on appeal "read
on" something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the
reference (Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp, 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007