Appeal No. 2003-0030
Application No. 09/660,871
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).
A feature of each of appellants' independent method claims
32 through 34 is the step of releasing containers so that the
containers "fall into" a case. The main thrust of appellants'
argument on appeal is that the above feature is not taught by the
Bauer reference.
Figs. 7 and 8 of Bauer clearly depict supporting rods 15
extending above the top edge of a high flange of the tray 16
before and immediately after commencement of a charging
operation, respectively. However, the specification cryptically
indicates (column 3, lines 68 through 72), seemingly contrary to
the showing in Figs. 7 and 8, that before the charging operation,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007