Appeal No. 1999-0937
Application No. 08/646,530
Claim 1 sets forth a wheel chair for transporting a rider
and cargo, comprising, inter alia, a chair having a seat portion
and a back portion, a pair of elongated handle members that
function as a pair of protective rails enclosing the rider, a
wheel positioned centrally below the seat portion, and a braking
means for slowing and stopping the wheel chair.
Anticipation 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 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).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007