Appeal No. 2002-0553
Application No. 09/391,782
(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).
At this point, we recognize from a reading of the
“BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION” section of the present
specification (page 3) that, prior to appellants’ invention, it
was known to display an FMS textual information segment on a
multi-functional display also containing a map display. This
prior art is further described in the specification (page 7) and
depicted in the drawings (Fig. 1).
Prior to addressing the rejection on appeal, it is important
to consider the meaning of the recitations “route window”
(independent claim 2) and “window of route information”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007