Appeal No. 2006-0242
Application No. 09/920,728
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants’ claims and
specification, the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions advanced by the appellants and the examiner.
As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
We turn first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5, 7,
9, and 10 as being anticipated by Moberg.
We initially note that a prior art reference anticipates the
subject of a claim when the reference discloses every feature of
the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently. See
Hazani v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 126 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d
1358, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data
Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1984). However, anticipation does not require that the reference
teach what the appellants are claiming, but only that the claims
on appeal “read on” something disclosed in the reference. See
Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781,
789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
In support of his anticipation rejection, the examiner
finds:
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007