Ex Parte Graham et al - Page 4




         Appeal No. 2004-2038                                                       
         Application No. 09/681,778                                                 



         since these claims stand or fall with claim 1 as earlier                   
         indicated.                                                                 


              Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) 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).                                                               





                                         4                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007