Appeal No. 2004-1114 Page 7
Application No. 10/079,706
The appellants have not specifically contested the rejection of claim 6 in the
brief. In fact, the appellants state (brief, p. 7) "[w]ith respect to claim 6, Applicant does
not submit any arguments." Accordingly, we summarily sustain the rejection of claim 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
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 teachings of Hart
Hart's invention relates in general to means for securing a door lock in assembly
with a door and more particularly to means for securing a lock of a type which includes
a case for mounting in a transverse opening in a door, an outer rose liner and an outer
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007