Appeal No. 2005-0778
Application No. 09/867,587
claims separately only to the extent separate arguments for patentability are presented.
Any dependent claim not separately argued will stand or fall with its base claim. Note In
re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker,
702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983). We address the claims in
groupings to follow the order discussed in the brief.
35 U.S.C. § 102
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." While all elements of the claimed invention must appear
in a single reference, additional references may be used to interpret the anticipating
reference and to shed light on its meaning, particularly to those skilled in the art at the
relevant time. See Studiengesellschaft Kohle v. Dart Indus., Inc., 726 F.2d 724,
726-727, 220 USPQ 841, 842-843 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007