Appeal 2006-2714 Application 10/228,898 claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Anticipation does not require 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). Further, while anticipation requires the disclosure of each and every limitation of the claim at issue in a single prior art reference, it does not require such disclosure in haec verba. In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 660, 193 USPQ 12, 16 (CCPA 1977). For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5 as anticipated by Sims, citing Deware, Nelson, Carter, Evensen, and Hurst as extrinsic evidence that steel wool is an art-recognized sanding surface. The rejection of claim 5, as well as claims 6 and 8, which Appellant has not argued separately from claim 5, as anticipated by Sims is sustained. The third issue presented to us is whether Sims’ V-shaped pad 88 meets the limitation in claim 7 that the V-shaped sanding pad “assumes the V-shape prior to being secured to the V-shaped carrier” (Br. 8-9). While Sims clearly illustrates the removable pad 88 (Figs. 8 and 9) assuming a V- shape when secured to V-shaped auxiliary tool 86, Sims gives no indication as to whether pad 88 is stable in its V-shape when not secured to auxiliary tool 86. Therefore, to conclude that pad 88 is stable in its V-shape when not secured to auxiliary tool 86, as required by claim 7, and claim 9 depending from claim 7, would require speculation. As discussed above in our reversal of the indefiniteness rejection of claim 7, the Examiner erred in dismissing 8Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013