Appeal No. 2003-1599
Application 09/494,028
We find that the written description in appellants’ specification makes clear to one of
ordinary skill in this art what a dish assembly is and how it is used, such that in light of the
specification and the claimed invention as a whole, the plain language of illustrative appealed
claim 35 is clearly drawn to a dish assembly which can be positioned in the lid of a casket and
comprises at least the stated separate panel and panel insert components in this respect. Thus, the
preamble of appealed claim 35 is a structural limitation on the dish assembly as claimed even
though such language does not otherwise limit the claimed dish assembly to that use. See
generally Stencel, supra.
While the examiner correctly takes the position that the appealed claims are anticipated if
they “‘read on’ something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of the claims are found
in the reference, or ‘fully met’ by it,” Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218
USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), the question of whether a reference meets all of the claim
limitation is one of fact. See generally, Schreiber, supra; Preda, supra. In this respect, we agree
with appellants that the full view changeable display sign of Delaquila is simply “not a dish
assembly as claimed” because, as a matter of fact, the display sign as described in the reference
cannot be positioned in the lid of a casket in the same manner as a dish assembly, no matter how
affixed to the lid. Indeed, we discern no disclosure in the reference or inference that one skilled
in the art would have drawn from any disclosure therein, which would have described the
claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims 35 through 38 within the meaning of
§ 102(b). Accordingly, we reverse the second ground of rejection.
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007