Appeal No. 2002-1185
Application No. 09/112,242
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), 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.”
Furthermore, anticipation requires a finding that the claim at
issue “reads on” a prior art reference. See also Atlas Powder
Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d at 1346, 51 USPQ2d at 1945 (Fed. Cir.
1999) (quoting Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,
781, 227 USPQ 773, 778 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
After reviewing Leonhardt, we find that the Examiner
presents sufficient evidentiary support to establish a prima
facie case of anticipation. We agree with the Examiner that
moveable guides 415 and 419 along with guides 408 and 411, as
depicted in Figures 4 and 5, translate the magnetic tape from a
straight path at least 180° around a circumference of takeup reel
402. We also find that the Examiner has correctly characterized
the moveable guides of Leonhardt as the claimed “tape wrap means
for translating said threaded magnetic tape” which translate the
magnetic tape from its predetermined path around the takeup reel.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007