Appeal No. 2000-1359 Page 3
Application No. 08/351,613
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The Rejection Under Section 102
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, for example, In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480-1481, 31 USPQ2d
1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 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 examiner has taken the position that all of the subject matter recited in claim
79 is disclosed or taught by Plechinger. The only argument advanced by the appellants
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007