Appeal No. 2003-1796 Page 7
Application No. 09/513,563
§ 103, for "anticipation is the epitome of obviousness." Jones v. Hardy, 727 F.2d 1524,
1529, 220 USPQ 1021, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See also In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,
794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ
641, 644 (CCPA 1974).
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 appellants argue (brief, p. 10) that neither Dunbar or Rudoi teach or suggest
the containment wrap as recited in claim 8. We do not agree. Claim 8 reads on Rudoi's
plate 38 enclosed within outer envelope or casing 32. Claim 8 reads on Dunbar's platelet
10, 10' or 10" embedded in matrix 20. While each individual disk of either Dunbar or
Rudoi is not fully encased within a containment wrap in the same manner as disclosed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007