Ex parte BARRON - Page 4




          Appeal No. 1998-1919                                       Page 4           
          Application No. 08/620,993                                                  


               We sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-8, 11, 15, 24,              
          25, 27-29 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by                 
          Ursrey, but not the rejection of claims 9 and 10.                           


               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 appellant is claiming, but                
          only that the claims on appeal "read on" something disclosed                
          in the reference (see Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d              









Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007