Appeal No. 2002-2039 Page 4
Application No. 09/258,712
The anticipation rejection
We sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 4, 6, 8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Sturman but not the rejection of claims 9, 21 to 24, 26 and 27.
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is
found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.
Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed.
Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). 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 the 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."
Claims 1, 9 and 21 read as follows:
1. A fuel injector nozzle assembly comprising:
a lower tip component having a solitary annular locating surface that is a
first locating surface and defining a lower guide bore with a first centerline and a
nozzle outlet;
said first locating surface being included on a first line rotated about said
first centerline;
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007