Appeal No. 2000-1164 Page 5
Application No. 08/899,176
that may be possessed by the prior art 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). A prior art
reference anticipates the subject matter of a claim when the
reference discloses every feature of the claimed invention,
either explicitly or inherently (see Hazani v. Int'l Trade
Comm'n, 126 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1358, 1361 (Fed. Cir.
1997) and RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730
F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984)); however,
the law of anticipation does not require that the reference teach
what the appellants are claiming, but only that the claims on
appeal "read on" something disclosed 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)).
Anticipation under this section is a factual determination. See
In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390, 21 USPQ2d 1281,
1283 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15
USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the case before us, we
determine that Eitoku discloses, either expressly or inherently,
every limitation of the invention set forth in representative
claim 8.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007