Appeal No. 2006-3134
Application No. 10/157,603
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
Appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by Appellants and the Examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations that follow.
We note that Appellants have indicated three separate headings to address three
groupings of claims. We will address the representative claims 1, 8, and 13 from each of
the groupings.
35 U.S.C. § 102
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is
found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference. Verdegaal
Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
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 reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the
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 v. Dart Indus., Inc., 726 F.2d 724, 726-727,
220 USPQ 841, 842-843 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007