Appeal No. 2002-2300 Page 3
Application No. 09/186,212
The guidance provided by our reviewing court with regard to the matter of
anticipation is as follows: 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,
1480-1481, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (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. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 633, 2 USPQ2d
1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 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).
There is no dispute that Strom is directed to a subambient pressure air slider.
Using the language of claim 1 as a guide, the Strom slider illustrated in Figure 11
comprises a slider body (110) defined by a leading edge (121) and two side edges
extending longitudinally along the slider body having an air bearing surface including a
lead portion (120) and first and second rails (116 and 118) coupled together via the
lead portion. Each of the first and second rails include a neck portion (132 and 138;
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007