Appeal No. 2003-1336 Page 5
Application No. 09/642,398
the principles of inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention. See, for
example, In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480-1481, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir.
1994) and In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Anticipation by a prior art reference does not require either the inventive concept of the
claimed subject matter or recognition of inherent properties that may be possessed by
the reference. See Verdegaal Brothers Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d
628, 633, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Nor does it require that the
reference teach what the applicant is claiming, but only that the claim 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).
Like the appellants’ invention, Hennessey is directed to a block system
configured for installation between a clamping device and a workpiece (Figure 4).
Using the language of claim 18 as a guide, Hennessey discloses a first block 20 (Figure
1) configured for contacting and being interposed between a clamp J2 and a workpiece
W. First block 20 has a first hole pattern 26, 27, 28 that comprises at least one hole
capable of being positioned clear of a clamp when interposed between a clamp and a
workpiece, for example, when used with a clamp having a height or length less than
that of the block. Hennessey further discloses a second block (Figure 11) configured to
contact and interpose between a clamp and a workpiece, the second block having a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007