Appeal No. 2004-2059
Application No. 10/278,725
described later. Between the said vaults, there are
slits (2) which divide the panel into an array of rigid
sub-elements in the form of pedestals, which are
inter-connected by small cross-sections of material
(3). This allows the panel to flex and to accommodate
undulations in the surface of the structural sub-floor.
[Column 3, lines 11-25.]
Figures 6-9 illustrate a second modular floor panel
embodiment. According to Boyd:
This second type of construction differs from the
first in that additional slits (5) are provided which
divide the panel into triangular sub-elements (6).
Triangular sub-elements have the advantage of
accommodating to an uneven sub-surface, and this type
of construction is applicable to the use of rigid
materials such as pressed steel, cast aluminium, or
rigid plastics. [Column 3, lines 59-65.]
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is established only
when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or
under the principles of inherency, each and every element of a
claimed invention. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc.,
730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.), cert.
dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984). It is not necessary that the
reference teach what the subject application discloses and
claims, but only that the claim on appeal “reads on” something
disclosed in the reference, i.e., that 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),
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007