Appeal 2007-0600
Application 09/943,535
means” an interpretation as broad as would be reasonable in light of
Appellants’ express claim limitations interpreted in light of the disclosure.
Additionally, we note that claim 14 is either an improper dependent
claim since it does not further limit independent claim 1, and it should be
rewritten in independent format or the claim should be rewritten to further
limit the claim as recited in independent claim 1.
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 meaning, particularly to those skilled in the
art at the relevant time. See Studiengesellschaft Kohle, M.B.H. v. Dart
Indus., Inc., 726 F.2d 724, 726-27, 220 USPQ 841, 842-43 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
From our review of the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1,
we find that the Examiner has at least established a prima facie case of
anticipation of independent claim 1 and shown that Nishioka teaches all of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013