Appeal No. 2003-1561 Page 6
Application No. 09/632,840
denied, 116 S.Ct. 1567 (1996); Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263-64, 191
USPQ at 97.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Appellants indicate that, other than the separately argued
independent claims, the appealed claims stand or fall together
(brief, page 6). Accordingly, we shall consider the dependent
claims to stand or fall together with the independent claims from
which they depend. Furthermore, we note that appellants have not
separately argued the patentability of claims 20 and 27, the only
independent claims subject to the anticipation rejections of the
examiner, in a manner consistent with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) and
(c)(8) (2000). Consequently, we select claim 20 as the
representative claim on which we shall decide this appeal as to
the examiner’s § 102 rejections. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2000).
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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007