Appeal No. 2002-0558 Page 5
Application No. 09/289,076
"Having construed the claim limitations at issue, we now compare the claims to
the prior art to determine if the prior art anticipates those claims." In re Cruciferous
Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
"[A]nticipation is a question of fact." Hyatt, 211 F.3d at 1371, 54 USPQ2d at 1667
(citing Bischoff v. Wethered, 76 U.S. (9 Wall.) 812, 814-15 (1869); In re Schreiber, 128
F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). "A claim is anticipated . . .
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. 1987) (citing Structural
Rubber Prods. Co. v. Park Rubber Co., 749 F.2d 707, 715, 223 USPQ 1264, 1270
(Fed. Cir. 1984); Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220 USPQ
193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d760, 771, 218
USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Here, we find that Meyer discloses an apparatus for monitoring leakage currents
between an insulator and ground. Specifically, the reference's "device [is] used in the
continuous, on-line, monitoring of the charging or leakage current of a step-graded or
capacitive insulated high voltage apparatus." Col. 3, ll. 18-20. We also find that the
device includes a wire for carrying a leakage current from the insulator to the ground.
Specifically, "lowest potential foil layer 26 is electrically connected to ground 10 with a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007