Appeal No. 2006-0562
Application No. 09/952,588
Rather than reiterate the conflicting view points advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed Apr. 7, 2005) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the brief (filed Nov. 12, 2004) for appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
35 U.S.C. § 102
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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007