Appeal No. 2004-0366 Page 5
Application No. 09/848,044
The appellants have not specifically contested this rejection in the brief.
Accordingly, we summarily sustain the rejection of claims 20, 22 and 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
The anticipation rejection based on Mudd
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 15 to 21, 24 and 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Mudd.
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is
found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.
Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed.
Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). The inquiry as to whether a reference
anticipates a claim must focus on what subject matter is encompassed by the claim and
what subject matter is described 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), cert.
denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984), 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."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007