Appeal No. 2006-2314 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/856,225
appellants’ arguments set forth in the brief, appellants have not
persuaded us of reversible error on the part of the examiner.
Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s rejections for
substantially the reasons set forth by the examiner in the
answer. We add the following for emphasis.
§ 102(b) Rejection
Anticipation by a prior art reference does not require that
the reference recognize either the inventive concept of the
claimed subject matter or the inherent properties that may be
possessed by the prior art reference. See Verdegaal Bros. Inc.
v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 633, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1054 (Fed.
Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). A prior art reference
anticipates the subject matter of a claim when the reference
discloses every feature of the claimed invention, either
explicitly or inherently (see Hazani v. U.S. 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,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007