Appeal No. 1999-0832 Page 4
Application No. 08/147,793
rejections advanced by the examiner, and the evidence of
anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the examiner as
support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
appellants' arguments set forth in the brief along with the
examiner's rationale in support of the rejections and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 4, and 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on the teachings of Suzuki.
Anticipation is a question of fact. In re King, 801 F.2d
1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986). 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
our reviewing 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."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007