Appeal No. 97-2606 Page 5
Application No. 08/017,568
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The anticipation issue
We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 1
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,
1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data
Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007