Appeal No. 2002-1574 Page 3
Application No. 09/280,921
All of the claims stand rejected as being anticipated by Jonner. Anticipation is
established only when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or under
the principles of inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention. See, for
example, In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir.
1994) and In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Anticipation by a prior art reference does not require either the inventive concept of the
claimed subject matter or recognition of inherent properties that may be possessed by
the reference. See Verdegaal Brothers Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 633,
2 USPQ2d 1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). Nor does it
require that the reference teach what the applicant is claiming, but only that the claim
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).
Jonner is directed to a device and method for controlling the brake system of a
vehicle. Using the language of claim 1 as a guide, the Jonner system illustrated in
Figure 1 comprises a braking system including at least one brake circuit HZ1 or HZ2
and a reservoir 102 for accommodating a braking medium, the at least one brake circuit
HZ2 including wheel brake cylinders 108 and 110, a first valve arrangement 120, 122
on an output side and a second valve arrangement 118 on an input side. The first
valve arrangements 120, 122 are connected to the wheel brake cylinders which are
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007