Appeal No. 1999-2845 Page 5
Application No. 08/495,471
mailed May 11, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 19,
filed March 29, 1999) and reply brief (Paper No. 21, filed
June 14, 1999) 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 references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The anticipation rejection
We sustain the rejection of claims 17, 18, 24 to 33, 37
to 44 and 47 to 60 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