Appeal 2006-1521
Application 09/815,877
least one port . . .” (emphasis added). Dickerhoff fails to disclose these
claim features.
Dickerhoff discloses using a closure mechanism which may include
“snaps” to seal the end of the inlet ports (Dickerhoff, col. 3, ll. 13-17).
However, Dickerhoff does not describe how the “snaps” are positioned with
respect to the inlet port. Any assessment of how the snaps are used to close
the inlet ports requires speculation. Such speculation does not satisfy the
requirements for anticipation.
Anticipation requires that every element as set forth in a claim is
found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
reference. Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628,
631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “The identical invention must
be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the ... claim.” Richardson
v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir.
1989). The elements must be arranged as required by a claim, but this is not
an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re
Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Dickerhoff contains a disclosure of a broad concept: providing
reclosable mechanisms on the inlet ports of an inflatable thermal blanket.
Dickerhoff fails to either expressly or inherently describe how any of the
disclosed closure mechanisms are implemented on the inlet ports. Because
of such ambiguity in Dickerhoff’s disclosure, it is impossible to determine
whether any of Dickerhoff’s closure mechanisms anticipate placing a “plug”
“in” an inlet port as claimed. Anticipation requires that the identical
invention be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the claim.
Richardson, 868 F.2d at 831, 15 USPQ2d at 1566. See also, W. L. Gore &
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007