Appeal No. 2004-0842
Application No. 09/539,454
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 Systems,
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 appellants are disclosing, but only
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).
The appellants have not disputed the examiner’s finding that
Perkins discloses an apparatus comprising a lower mould part 2
having a plurality of concavities 5 adapted to receive dough
corresponding to the claimed pan having a plurality of recesses
adapted to receive dough, an upper mould part 3 having a
plurality of formers 8 corresponding to the claimed lid assembly
having a plurality of lids and a baker’s oven corresponding to
“being of improper dependent form...” See the Answer, page 4.
However, these issues are not properly before us since they are
not appealable to this Board, but are reviewable by the Director
of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on petition.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007