Appeal No. 2003-0221
Application 09/670,929
Appellant’s arguments against the examiner’s use of Teasdale
to reject claim 1 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) focus on the
functional recitations of claim 1 regarding use of the container
therein for holding rolls of wrapping paper. More particularly,
appellant contends that the examiner has ignored the functional
limitations in claim 1 and the accompanying structural
limitations appertaining thereto. In light of the following
commentary, we find these arguments to be unpersuasive.
An anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is established when
a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or under
principles of inherency, each and every element or limitation of
a claimed invention. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477,
44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed Cir 1997) and RCA Corp. v. Applied
Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385,
388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). However, we observe that the law of
anticipation does not require that the reference teach what the
appellant has disclosed 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 871, 789 (Fed. Cir.
1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984). In the present case,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007