Appeal No. 2001-1772 Page 4
Application No. 09/059,699
The Rejection Under Section 102
The guidance provided by our reviewing court with regard to the matter of
anticipation is as follows: 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 In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480-1481, 31 USPQ2d 1671,
1675 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708,
15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 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. See Verdegaal Brothers Inc. v. Union
Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 633, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Nor
does it require that the reference teach 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. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp, 713 F.2d 760, 772,
218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
The appellant’s claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A razor cartridge comprising:
a platform member;
a first blade placed on said platform member;
a spacer having a base portion with an upper surface and a lower surface;
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007