Ex parte SCHIWEK - Page 5




          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