Appeal No. 2002-2148 Page 4
Application No. 09/627,143
The anticipation rejection
We sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Mannava.
A claim is anticipated only 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.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). The inquiry as to whether a reference
anticipates a claim must focus on what subject matter is encompassed by the claim and
what subject matter is described by the reference. As set forth by the court in Kalman
v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984), it is only necessary for the claims to "'read on' something
disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the reference, or
'fully met' by it."
Claim 1 reads as follows:
An article made of a metallic material, the article comprising:
a body; and,
an end portion integral with the body;
the end portion comprising a band of the metallic material through the
entire cross section of the end portion and integral with and into the body;
the band being under a compressive stress greater than the body.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007