Appeal No. 1998-1416 Page 3
Application No. 08/062,736
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner.
We have treated the claims separately to the extent appellants
have argued the limitations of each claim separately consistent
with 37 CFR § 1.192 (c)(7) and (c)(8) (1997). In so doing, we
find that the examiner’s 102 rejection of claims 20-22 and 27
. However, we concur with the examiner’s
conclusion with respect to claims 18, 19 and 25. Accordingly, we
will sustain the § 102(b) rejection of claims 18, 19 and 25. Our
reasoning follows.
Initially we note that anticipation by a prior art reference
does not require that reference to recognize either the inventive
concept of the claimed subject matter or the 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 matter of a claim when the
reference discloses every feature of the claimed invention,
either explicitly or inherently (see Hazani v. Int'l Trade
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007