Appeal No. 1999-1780
Application No. 08/651,630
In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (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 Bros., Inc. v. Union
Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 633, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir.),
cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). Nor is it required 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).
Lohrey pertains to an automated customer interface system
for services involving drop off and pick up. A brief
explanation of the Lohrey interface system is found in the
abstract, which reads as follows:
A system for [an] automated, attendant-free customer
interface for services such as laundry and dry
cleaning processing or rental of items such as
videotapes [which] enables customers to order services
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007