Appeal No. 98-2150
Application No. 08/539,926
As a preliminary matter, we base our understanding of the
appealed subject matter upon the following interpretation of
the terminology appearing in the claims. In the last two
lines of claim 22 (as they appear in the appendix to the
brief) we interpret "said primary sealing surface" to be --
said secondary sealing surface --.
On page 4 of the brief the appellant states that claims
1, 17 and 22 will stand or fall together, but that claim 8 is
distinctly patentable. Accordingly, claims 1, 17 and 22 will
stand or fall with representative claim 1, while claim 8 will
stand or fall by itself. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
Considering first the rejection of claims 1, 17 and 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Szymczak, we
initially observe 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. Verdegaal Bros.,
Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 633, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1054
(Fed. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). A prior
art reference anticipates the subject matter of a claim when
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007