Appeal No. 1999-2761
Application No. 08/790,322
the fastening function to a processor means (say, central or
cell controller 84, 1038)," he does not identify, and we do
not find, where such disclosure is located in Speller.
Accordingly, we agree with appellants to the extent that there
does not appear to be any explicit disclosure in Speller of
the claim limitations referred to in the above quotation from
page 3 of appellants’ brief. This does not end the inquiry,
however, because it is well settled that "[u]nder the
principles of inherency, if a structure in the prior art
necessarily functions in accordance with the limitations of a
process or method claim of an application, the claim is
anticipated." In re King, 801 F.3d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO
Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, ___, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1946 (Fed. Cir.
1999), and MEHL/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum, ___ F.3d
____, ____, 52 USPQ2d 1303, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
In the present case, we do not agree with appellants that
measurements and data are not downloaded from Speller’s
controller 1014 (i.e., fastening machines) to controller 1038.
To the contrary, we consider that such downloading inherently,
if not explicitly, occurs in the Speller system because the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007