Appeal No. 2005-0934 Page 7
Application No. 10/414,060
The anticipation rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
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."
Takamiya provides that in the past it was a laborious burden to carry bags in one
hand while an umbrella was open. Takamiya teaches to solve that problem by the use
of an umbrella which during departure through an open door of a car on a rainy day is
attached to the glass window of the door to provide standing room and allow the user to
have both hands available (see Figures 1(a) and 1(b)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007