Appeal No. 1998-2941 Page 12
Application No. 08/061,985
Reexamination Control No. 90/003,682
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 1 to 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
Rejection (4)
We sustain the rejection of claims 20, 25-28, 33-35,
46/20, and 46/28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated
by Dunn.
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
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007