Appeal No. 1998-1928 Page 5
Application No. 08/543,153
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The anticipation issue
We sustain the rejection of claims 2 through 7, 10, 11
and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Initially we note that anticipation by a prior art
reference does not require either the inventive concept of the
claimed subject matter or the recognition of inherent
properties that may be possessed by the prior art reference.
See Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 633,
2 USPQ2d 1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827
(1987). A prior art reference anticipates the subject of a
claim when the reference discloses every feature of the
claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently (see Hazani
v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 126 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1358,
3(...continued)
the specification and claim 9.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007