Appeal No. 2006-0562
Application No. 09/952,588
reference, or 'fully met' by it." While all elements of the claimed invention must appear
in a single reference, additional references may be used to interpret the anticipating
reference and to shed light on its meaning, particularly to those skilled in the art at the
relevant time. See Studiengesellschaft Kohle, M.B.H. v. Dart Indus., Inc., 726 F.2d
724, 726-727, 220 USPQ 841, 842-843 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), it must be shown that
each element of the claim is found, either expressly described or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art 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).
Initially we note that anticipation by a prior art reference does not require either
the inventive concept of the claimed subject matter or the recognition of inherent
properties that may be possessed by the prior art reference. See 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). 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. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 126 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d
1358, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc.,
730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984)); however, the law of
anticipation does not require that the reference teach what the appellants are claiming,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007