Appeal No. 2005-0948 Page 4
Application No. 09/922,938
Claim 20
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Clay.
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."
Claim 20 reads as follows:
A tool rest assembly for a lathe apparatus having a Iathe bed assembly,
said tool rest assembly comprising a tool support housing extending vertically
from a tool rest main body, said tool rest main body comprising a tool rest
housing and a locking assembly for selectively locking said tool rest housing to
the Iathe bed assembly, said locking assembly including a locking plate for
engaging an undersurface of a bedway of the lathe bed assembly; a slider block
seated and disposed within said tool rest housing, a non-circular locking shaft
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007