Appeal No. 1998-3380
Application 08/542,591
is a schematic representation of the layout of various
complements on a chip shown in Figure 5 of Crowder. For the
probe 7 of Figure 5 (also Figure 2) to function, there
inherently must be an interaction among all the complements
which are shown in Figure 5. Therefore, we conclude that the
components shown in Figure 5 are coupled, contrary to the
assertions made by Appellants. Our position is supported by
the case law, which states that "[t]o establish inherency, the
extrinsic evidence 'must make clear that the missing
descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing
described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized
by persons of ordinary skill.'" In re Robertson, 169 F.3d
743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-1951 (Fed. Cir. 1999), citing
Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.3d 1264, 1268, 20
USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 1991). "Inherency, however, may
not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The
mere fact that a certain thing may result for a given set of
circumstances is not sufficient." Id. citing Continental Can
Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.3d at 1269, 20 USPQ2d at 1749. In
the instant case, this is further buttressed by the disclosure
of Kogure at col. 4,
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007