Appeal No. 2006-1707
Application No. 09/964,029
invention. In fact, the disputed features are broad enough such
that, to the extent claimed, the reference is sufficiently
enabling and places the disclosed matter in the possession of the
public. See Akzo N.V. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 808
F. 2d 1471, 1479, 1 USPQ2d 1241 , 1245 ( Fed. Cir. 1986).
Turning now to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claim 6, we note that
a rejection for anticipation requires that the four corners of a
single prior art document describe every element of the claimed
invention, either expressly or inherently, such that a person of
ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention without
undue experimentation. See Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190
F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re
Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir.
1994). 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), it is only necessary for the claims to “‘read on’
something disclosed in the prior art reference, i.e., all
limitations of the claim are found in the reference, or ‘fully
met’ by it.” See also Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007