Appeal No. 2003-1302
Application 09/035,478
severed), but are rather permanent portions of the split sleeve”
(emphasis in original).
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).
While it is true that there is nothing in the Kooji
reference which expressly indicates that the split sleeve
component seen in Figure 3 thereof is a “preform” that is
intended to be subsequently modified by cutting through the
annular portions (14) thereof, we are in complete agreement with
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007