Appeal No. 2003-1289 Page 4
Application No. 09/028,796
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."
The anticipation rejection based on Wible
We sustain the rejection of claims 23 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Wible.
Wible's invention relates to burial cases or caskets. Figure 1 is a perspective
view of the complete casket. Figure 2 is a transverse section thereof, and, Figure 3 is a
longitudinal section thereof. As shown in the drawings, the casket includes a body 1
and a lid 2 adapted to be fitted upon the body 1. Lid 2 is provided with an elongated
opening 3 in the top thereof. A window 4 is slidably mounted below the opening 3 in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007