Appeal 2007-0288
Application 10/715,408
25, 2005) and Reply Brief (filed Aug. 8, 2005) for the arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to Appellants’ Specification and claims, to the applied prior art
references, and to the respective positions articulated by Appellants and the
Examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations
that follow.
35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103
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. of California, 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, m.b.H. v. Dart
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013