Appeal No. 1999-0404 Page 5
Application No. 08/580,256
filed March 30, 1998) and reply brief (Paper No. 19, filed
August 10, 1998) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007