Appeal No. 2002-0962
Application No. 09/017,959
claimed subject matter, and will decide the appeal on the basis
thereof, with claims 18-28 standing or falling therewith.
The test for anticipation is whether a prior art reference
discloses every limitation of the claimed invention, either
explicitly or inherently. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44
USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The law of anticipation does
not require that the reference “teach” what appellant teaches; all
that is necessary is that the claims “read on” something disclosed
in the reference. Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760,
772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S.
1026 (1984).
We consider that the Stevens patent, which discloses a finger
toothbrush, meets these requirements. Considering the Stevens
reference in relation to the structure recited in claim 17, Stevens
discloses a mechanism in the form of a body with a central bore for
retaining the device on a wearer’s finger, a pad at the bottom of
the device (as shown in Figs. 1, 2 and 3) having one or more
projections and associated with the retaining mechanism, the pad
having an arcuate surface as shown in Fig. 2. As for the
recitations in claim 17 that the projections are configured “such
that tips of said projections define a curve which has a curvature
substantially like a curvature of the bowling ball when force is
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007