Appeal No. 2004-0376 Page 4
Application No. 09/457,286
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."
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 11-15) that van Elten does not disclose a
transporter enclosed by and moveable within a substantially enclosed cabinet for
transporting products between the product conveyors and the infeed/outfeed
mechanism as set forth in claims 1 to 8, 10 to 14, 16 and 18 to 20. As set forth in this
rejection, the examiner believes (final rejection, p. 2) that (1) the claimed "substantially
enclosed cabinet" is readable on van Elten's compartment 3; (2) the "product
conveyors" are readable on van Elten's conveyors 5; (3) the "infeed/outfeed
mechanism" is readable on either van Elten's supply conveyor 1 and exit conveyor 13 or
swing elevator 9 and transferring device 17 or supply conveyor 1 and collecting
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007