Appeal No. 2006-0894 Page 3
Application No. 10/412,840
OPINION
Having carefully considered each of appellants* arguments
set forth in the brief, appellants have not persuaded us of
reversible error on the part of the examiner. Accordingly, we
will affirm the examiner’s rejections for substantially the
reasons set forth by the examiner in the answer. We add the
following for emphasis.
Appellants furnish seven subheadings (A1-A7) in the brief
identifying either single claims or groups of claims as being
separately argued. Consequently, we shall consider the claims
separately to the extent that they are separately argued in the
brief and select a representative claim for each of the several
groups of claims that are argued together. See 37 CFR
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
§ 102(b) Alternative of Rejection
Anticipation by a prior art reference does not require that
the reference 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007