Appeal No. 2006-2187
Application No. 10/642,413
unpatentable over Owens in view of Biche, as applied to claim 7 above, and
further in view of Riggs. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Owens and Biche, as applied to claim 7 above,
and further in view of Beinhaur. Claims 11 and 16 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Owens in view of Wiebe.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to Appellant’s specification and claims, to the applied prior art
references, and to the respective positions articulated by Appellant and the
Examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations
that follow.
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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013