Appeal No. 2004-1052 Page 4
Application No. 09/848,132
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."
Claim 15, the only independent claim subject to this rejection, reads as follows:
A multiple-pulley accessory drive system for an automobile, comprising:
a drive pulley driven by an automobile engine;
at least one accessory pulley operatively coupled to an accessory drive
shaft, the drive pulley and accessory pulley having a nominal drive length
therebetween; and
an endless drive belt engaged between the drive pulley and the accessory
pulley, the drive belt including an endless band of rubber composite material
having a plurality of circumferentially extending and axially aligned cords formed
therewithin;
wherein the endless drive belt has a tensile modulus in the range of
approximately 7000 N/mm/mm (1575 lbf/in/in) to approximately 10,000
N/mm/mm (2250 lbf/in/in).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007