Appeal 2007-1951
Application 10/392,140
1 ISSUE
2 The issue is whether we erred in holding that the teachings of
3 Wenning were sufficient to anticipate claim 10, and whether we erred in
4 holding that the teachings and suggestions of Wenning and Just would have
5 suggested the language of claim 12. With regard to claim 10, the issue turns
6 on whether the shell bottom 16 of Wenning meets the claimed floor. With
7 regard to claim 12, the issue turns on whether Wenning meets the language
8 of the claim, or if not, whether the combined teachings and suggestions of
9 Wenning and Just would have suggested the language of the claim.
10
11 PRINCIPLES OF LAW
12
13 A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
14 the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
15 art reference. Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2
16 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The inquiry as to whether a reference
17 anticipates a claim must focus on what subject matter is encompassed by the
18 claim and what subject matter is described by the reference. As set forth by
19 the court in Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ
20 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), it is only necessary for the claims to "'read on'
21 something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are
22 found in the reference, or 'fully met' by it."
23
24
25 FINDINGS OF FACT
26 We make reference to our findings, in the Decision, as to the
27 teachings and suggestions of Wenning and Just.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013