Appeal No. 2005-2398
Application No. 09/899,029
disclosures of Miyazaki and Krauer.4
DISCUSSION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by both the
examiner and the appellant in support of their respective
positions. As result of this careful review, we have reached the
determinations which follow.
ANTICIPATION
Under Section 102(b), an 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). In other words, the law of anticipation only 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). It does not
4As is apparent from the final Office action dated November 5, 2002, and the appellant’s
brief, claim 28 was also finally rejected under Section 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of Miyazaki and Krauer.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007