Appeal No. 96-1931
Application 07/995,635
Sulcs does disclose an alumina tube having a zirconium oxide
coating formed around the end caps of the arc tube. The examiner
takes the position that the ZrO2 coating in Sulcs is continuous
because the coating does not have an abrupt break [answer, pages
3-4]. Appellants argue that since the coating in Sulcs appears
only at the end cap regions of the arc tube, there is a break in
the area between the coatings which are located at the respective
ends of the arc tube. Appellants also argue that the coating in
Sulcs is not used for the same purpose as the coating in the
invention. The examiner responds that the claims do not require
that the continuous coating extend over the entire surface of the
tube.
Appellants= argument regarding the purpose of the coating
is not persuasive. 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. Verdegaal Brothers Inc. v.
Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 633, 2 USPQ2d 1051,
1054 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). It is
enough that the article as recited in the claim exists in the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007