Appeal No. 2004-1897
Application No. 09/455,664
Anticipation
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 15, 2 through 4,
6, and 9 through 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated
by O'Flynn.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, either expressly or under principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention. See In
re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed.
Cir. 1997); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671,
1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d
1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital
Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). However, the law of anticipation does not require
that the reference teach specifically what an appellant has
disclosed and is claiming but only that the claims on appeal
"read on" something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all
limitations of the claim are found in the reference. See Kalman
v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Claim 15, the sole independent claim on appeal, sets forth a
filter that comprises, inter alia, a first mesh material provided
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007