Appeal No. 2004-0063
Application 09/767,359
However, we observe that the law of anticipation does not require
that the reference teach what the appellant has disclosed 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). In the present case,
claim 1 on appeal clearly reads on the apparatus for storing a
plurality of components seen in Figures 1 and 2 of both Kaneko
and Ball.
For the above reasons, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejections of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by each of Kaneko and Ball, and the rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Kaneko. In accord with appellant’s grouping of claims (brief,
page 4), claims 2 through 15 are considered to fall with claim 1.
In light of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 1 through 15 of the present application is
affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007