Appeal No. 1999-2092 Page 3
Application No. 08/798,718
mailed September 9, 1998) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the brief
(Paper No. 37, filed August 20, 1998) for the appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
Claim 42
We sustain the rejection of claim 42 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.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007