Ex parte ALEXANDRE - Page 4




          Appeal No. 2001-0528                                       Page 4           
          Application No. 08/892,348                                                  


          Rejection (1)                                                               
               We sustain the rejection of claims 21 to 24 under 35                   
          U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Pennecot.                           


               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).  The inquiry as to whether a reference anticipates a                
          claim must focus on what subject matter is encompassed by the               
          claim and what subject matter is described by the reference.                
          As set forth by the court in Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.,                
          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."                                                      


               We agree with the examiner's rationale (answer, pp. 5 and              
          10-11), which we incorporate as our own, that claims 21 to 24               







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007