Appeal No. 2004-0363
Application 09/176,866
applied prior art references, including all of the arguments
advanced by both the examiner and the appellant in support of
their respective positions. This review leads us to conclude
that the examiner’s rejections are well founded. Accordingly, we
affirm the examiner’s rejections for essentially those reasons
set forth in the Answer and below.
ANTICIPATION
An anticipation under Section 102 is established only when a
single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or under
the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed
invention. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655,
1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990); RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys.,
Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The law of anticipation, however, does not require that the prior
art reference “teach” what the present application teaches, but
only requires that the claims on appeal "read on" something
disclosed in the prior art 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).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007