Appeal 2006-1981
Application 10/284,837
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Friello in
view of Witzel.
OPINION
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments for patentability. However,
we are in complete agreement with the Examiner that claims 1-6, 10-12, 14,
16-20, and 22-26 would have been anticipated by Friello or Witzel and that
claims 7-9, 15, and 21 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art in light of the applied prior art as applied in the Answer. In this
regard, Appellants have not persuaded us of any reversible error in the
Examiner’s stated rejections. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejections for substantially the reasons expressed in the Answer and as
further discussed below.
§ 102(b) Rejections
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
discloses every feature of the claimed invention, either explicitly or
inherently (see Hazani v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 126 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44
USPQ2d 1358, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital
Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1984)). However, the law of anticipation does not require that the reference
teach what the Appellants teach in their Specification, but only that the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007