Appeal No. 2004-1016
Application No. 10/174,567
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 the appellants’ purpose disclosed in the
specification, 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).
As evidence of anticipation of the subject matter defined by
claims 1 through 3, 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the
examiner relies on the disclosure of Dunlap. The appellants do
not dispute the examiner’s finding that Dunlap teaches an
adjustable air vent for a vehicle having a stationary grill, a
movable grill and at least one projecting actuator as required by
claims 1 and 2. See the Brief, pages 10-11. The appellants only
argue that Dunlap does not teach the movable grill including the
projecting actuator as recited in claim 1. Id. In other words,
the appellants contend that Dunlap does not indicate that a
handle 44 corresponding to the claimed projecting actuator is
part of a shuttle plate 18 which corresponds to the claimed
movable grill. Id. According to the appellants (the Brief, page
11):
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007