Appeal No. 2003-2134 Page 3
Application No. 09/421,675
sustain the rejection of claim 9. We sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11
and 19 for the reasons which follow.2
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."
Claims 1, 5 , 7 to 9 and 19 read as follows:
1. A fork lift truck, comprising:
a lifting frame;
a rear weight;
a driver's cab, wherein the driver's cab forms a load-bearing component of
the fork lift truck;
2 The appellant has grouped claims 1 to 3, 10 and 11 to stand or fall together (brief, p. 5).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007