Appeal No. 1998-1263
Application No. 08/351,993
anticipation does not require that the reference teach
specifically what an appellant has disclosed and is claiming but
only that the claims 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).
Simply stated, and taking into full account our claim
language assessment, supra, we share the view of appellant that
rejected independent claims 1, 10, and 25, in particular, are not
anticipated by the Chamberlain teaching, i.e., they do not read
on the structure of the airplane wheel (Figs. 1, 2 and 4) of
Chamberlain. The examiner refers to the flat, annular layer 36
of asbestos (or other suitable insulation) on pressure plate 30
in the Chamberlain patent as the claimed first rigid disk
(answer, page 4). Clearly, annular layer 36 of Chamberlain does
not respond to all limitations of appellant's independent claims.
First, it is entirely speculative as to whether annular layer 36
is rigid, as that claim term is expressly and very specifically
defined in the appellant's specification. Second, the annular
layer 36 is not the front or first disk contacted by a plurality
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007