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