Appeal No. 2005-1316
Application No. 09/735,503
Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s Section 102(b)
rejection for those factual findings set forth in the Answer.
We add the following primarily for emphasis and completeness.
Under Section 102, anticipation 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. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655,
1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990); RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems,
Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The law of anticipation, however, does not require that the prior
art reference teach the appellants’ purpose disclosed in the
specification, but only that the claims on appeal "read on"
something disclosed in the prior art reference. See Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed.
Cir. 1983).
Here, there is no dispute that Gemma discloses the
manufacturing of a turbine blade (bucket) comprising the claimed
sequence of “investment casting the turbine blade with a single
crystal having controlled secondary crystallographic orientation
... ” Compare the Answer, page 3, with the Brief and the Reply
Brief in their entirety and see also Gemma, the abstract,
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007