Appeal No. 2004-2214
Application No. 10/068,983 Page 4
representative claim for the first claim grouping and claim 21 as
the representative claim for the second claim grouping.
We observe that anticipation by a prior art reference does
not require that reference to recognize either the inventive
concept of the claimed subject matter or the inherent properties
that may be possessed by the prior art reference. See Verdegaal
Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 633, 2 USPQ2d 1051,
1054 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). A prior art
reference anticipates the subject matter of a claim when the
reference discloses every feature of the claimed invention,
either explicitly or inherently (see Hazani v. Int'l Trade
Comm'n, 126 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1358, 1361 (Fed. Cir.
1997) and RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, 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
what the appellant is claiming, but only that the claims on
appeal "read on" something disclosed 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)).
Anticipation under this section is a factual determination.
See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390, 21 USPQ2d
1281, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007