Appeal No. 2005-1549
Application No. 10/193,407
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 Sys.,
Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.), cert.
dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984). In other words, anticipation
requires 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).
With the above precedents in mind, we turn first to the
examiner’s rejection of claims 11, 12, 14, 18 and 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by the disclosure of Enlow.
According to the examiner (Answer, page 3), Enlow teaches each
and every aspect of the claimed method. The appellants traverse,
arguing only that Enlow does not teach (1) the claimed plastic
film sheet, (2) the claimed vacuum molding in a mold cavity (3)
the claimed injection of a thermoplastic elastomer into a mold
cavity and (4) the claimed acrylic color layer. See the Brief,
pages 5-8. We are not persuaded by these arguments for the
reasons set forth below in seriatim.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007