Ex parte GRABHORN - Page 13

          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