Appeal No. 2002-1220
Application 08/940,601
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 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).
Independent claim 1 requires a distinctly visible mark
surrounding the tip of a sharp insertion end of a medical needle
that is combined with a syringe. Independent claim 9 specifies a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007