Appeal 2006-2139
Application 10/292,221
F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991). It is not
necessary that the reference teach what the subject application teaches, but
only that the claim read on something disclosed in the reference, i.e., that all
of the limitations in the claim be found in or fully met by the reference.
Kalman v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983).
A disclosure that anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102 also renders the
claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for “anticipation is the epitome of
obviousness.” Jones v. Hardy, 727 F.2d 1524, 1529, 220 USPQ 1021, 1025
(Fed. Cir. 1984). See also In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ
569, 571 (CCPA 1982); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ
641, 644 (CCPA 1974).
ANALYSIS
The sketches on the leaves of Meyers’ books are certainly flowing,
asymmetrical, and irregular in contour. Moreover, the term “sketch,” which
Meyers uses to describe the drawings on the leaves, is ordinarily understood
to mean “a simple, rough drawing or design, done rapidly and without much
detail” (David B. Guralnik, Webster’s New World Dictionary of the
American Language 1334 (2nd Coll. Ed., Simon & Schuster 1984) and thus
evokes a connotation of spontaneity. We therefore conclude that Meyers’
sketches are “free-form” as that term is used in Appellant’s claims and
defined in Appellant’s Brief.
The remainder of the claim language at issue, namely, “that a user
can, through the exercise of imagination and creativity, interpret and
supplement to construct an image that incorporates but is not determined by
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013