Ex Parte MURG - Page 5




          Appeal No. 2002-1888                                                        
          Application No. 09/185,493                                                  


                               The anticipation issue                                 


               We do not sustain the rejection of claims 6, 9, 11, 13                 
          through 15, and 19 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being             
          anticipated by Brimmer.                                                     


               Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is established only              
          when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or            
          under principles of inherency, each and every element of a                  
          claimed invention.  See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44            
          USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,            
          1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Spada, 911            
          F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and RCA               
          Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., 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                      
          specifically what an appellant has disclosed and is claiming but            
          only that the claims on appeal "read on" something disclosed in             
          the reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in              






                                          5                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007