Appeal No. 2003-1390
Application No. 08/989,342
surface on which the design is to be applied. Id.
Alternatively, or in addition, the template may include apertures
which accommodate such structures, e.g., a light fixture. Id.
Discussion
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102
A prior art reference anticipates a claim when the reference
discloses every feature of the claimed invention, either
explicitly or inherently. See Hazani v. United States
International Trade Commission, 126 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d,
1358, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Anticipation does not require that
the reference teach what the appellants are claiming, but only
that the claims on appeal “read on” something disclosed 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).
1. Rejection of claims 1, 14-17 and 22-24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as anticipated by Hinkes
Appellant argues that Hinkes cannot anticipate the present
invention because the template of Hinkes is not designed for
creating three-dimensional shapes. Appeal brief, page 13.
Rather, Hinkes discloses a template which is designed to create
the lines of a game court, which are essentially two-dimensional
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007