Appeal No. 1999-2446 Page 13
Application No. 08/705,592
strictly willow woven mat (page 1, lines 3-10). Figures 1-7
illustrate the steps employed by Scott in weaving his mats.
Scott teaches (page 1, lines 56-76) that (1) each row of
willows or the like are packed into position and that the wire
mesh is drawn tight to hold each row of willows or the like in
a tightly compacted mass; and (2) that practically all sizes
of material (i.e., willows or the like) may be used without
special cutting.
After the scope and content of the prior art are
determined, the differences between the prior art and the
claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere
Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
Claim 6
Based on our analysis and review of Scott and claim 6, it
is our opinion that there is no difference. In our view,
Scott anticipates claim 6. 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 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007