Appeal No. 2003-0550
Application No. 09/580,411
will be somewhat consistent for subsequent sheets, so that after
the first group of blister is cut, the die cutter units of
appellant's invention could be fixed in position for the
remainder of the runs for that batch of sheet material.
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 781, 789 (Fed. Cir.
1983). In the present case, while it is true that there is
nothing in the Carll patent which indicates that the connection
in question is used as a "lost motion connection" during
operative use of the die cutter apparatus, we agree with the
examiner that the connection in Carll is fully responsive to the
77
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007