Appeal No. 2001-0308 Page 5
Application No. 09/188,701
person that the straight vertical sides recited in claim 9 extend
down a distance of more than half the diameter of the wire with
which it is used.
In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the scope of
claim 9 would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the
art and, thus, we shall not sustain rejection (1).
The anticipation rejections
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA
Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444,
221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In other words, there must
be no difference between the claimed invention and the reference
disclosure, as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the field
of the invention. Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech
Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
It is not necessary that the reference teach what the subject
application teaches, but only that the claim read on something
disclosed in the reference, i.e., that all of the limitations in
the claim be found in or fully met by the reference. Kalman v.
Kimberly Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007