Appeal No. 97-0124
Application No. 08/273,672
of electrode G3 being different from the width of connecting
elements 82, 84 of electrode G4.
In response, Appellant contends that, since the disclosure
of Guzowski indicates no awareness of the electron “hopping”
problem addressed by Appellant, no concept for solving this
problem could possibly be disclosed. Further, Appellant asserts
that, since no description of the relative widths of the
electrode connecting elements appears in Guzowski’s disclosure,
no conclusion can be drawn as to such relative widths from the
Guzowski’s Figure 2 illustration. In Appellant’s view, since
Guzowski specifically states (column 2, lines 31-32) that the
drawings are not to scale, any depiction of differing widths of
the connecting elements is purely fortuitous.
Upon careful review of the Guzowski reference in light of
the arguments of record, we are in agreement with the Examiner’s
position as stated in the Answer. 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 references. 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). Our reviewing court has further held that
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007