Appeal No. 1997-3524 Page 9
Application No. 08/336,402
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 Pall discloses, either
expressly or inherently, every limitation of the invention set
forth in claim 1.
The examiner has correctly found that Pall fairly describes
a porous member that corresponds to the article of claim 1
including a porous body having pores that have restricted
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007