Appeal 2007-4099
Application 09/962,935
PRINCIPLES OF LAW, FACTS, ISSUES and ANALYSES
ANTICIPATION
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), anticipation is established only when a
single prior art reference describes, either expressly or under the principle
of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention. In re Spada,
911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The law of
anticipation, however, does not require that the prior art reference teach
Appellant's purpose or utility described in the Specification, but only that the
claims on appeal “read on” something disclosed in the reference. See
Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983).
Here, the Appellant has not challenged the Examiner’s finding at page
3 of the Answer2 that:
Klabunde discloses a unit suitable for the flow through of
a gas or liquid (see col. 3, lines 19-25), which unit is at
least partially filled with an adsorbent formed from
agglomerated fine particles of iron oxide (col. 2, lines 22-
23) which fine particles have the recited particle size (col.
2, lines 28-30) and BET surface area (col. 6, ll. 5-6)….
Compare Answer 3 with Br. 11-13.
2 The Appellant has not supplied any substantive arguments for the separate
patentability of any specific claims. See Br. 11-13. Therefore, for purposes
of this rejection, we focus our discussion on independent claim 1 alone
pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013