Appeal No. 2006-0894 Page 4
Application No. 10/412,840
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 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 teach in their specification, 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)).
Anticipation under this section is a factual determination.
See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390, 21 USPQ2d
1281, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831,
833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In the case before us, the examiner has determined that
Erickson discloses, expressly or inherently, a coating process
that meets every limitation of the invention set forth in the
appealed claims. We agree for reasons set forth in the answer
and below.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 6 and 21
We select claim 1 as representative of claims 1, 2, 3, 6 and
21, which are argued as a group in the brief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007