Appeal 2007-2137
Application 10/472,911
“To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every
limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently.” In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Applying the preceding legal principle to the Factual Findings in the
record of this appeal, we determine that the Examiner has not established
that Leese describes something embodying each and every structural
limitation of the claims with sufficient specificity to constitute an
anticipation. See In re Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312, 317 (CCPA 1978) (In
order to anticipate, a reference must identify something falling within the
claimed subject matter with sufficient specificity to constitute a description
thereof within the purview of § 102.).
As a first matter, Leese as evidenced by King, does not expressly
describe a sheet with a base layer of the claimed density. While Leese
suggests the use of “a composition such as described in [King],” that is only
a reference to the compositional blend of thermoplastic polymer and metal
resinate described in King (FF 1-2), it is not a reference to any specific
stretched sheet. King describes a large genus of useful compositions that
result in a range of end product sheets, the density of which sheets is
dependent on the specific compounds used, their concentration, and the
stretching parameters used to form the end product sheet (FF 4-5). Leese
makes no reference to the example stretched sheets of King, nor specifies
any density limitation on the core layer of the stretched sheets (FF 2). The
description of sheets in Leese is simply not specific enough to constitute an
anticipation of what is claimed.
Nor is there an inherent anticipation arising from the disclosure of
Leese as informed by King. In general, a limitation is inherent if it is the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013