Appeal No. 97-0963 Page 4
Application No. 08/439,515
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
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, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and RCA
Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444,
221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984)); however, the law of
anticipation does not require that the reference teach what the
appellants are claiming, but only that the claims on appeal "read
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007