Appeal No. 1999-2449
Application No. 08/745,584 Page 4
by the examiner, and the evidence of anticipation and obviousness
relied upon by the examiner as support for the rejections. We
have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in
reaching our decision, appellants' arguments set forth in the
briefs along with the examiner's rationale in support of the
rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner's
answer. Upon consideration of the record before us, we reverse.
We begin with the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-9, 15, and 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Gonzales. To
anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every
limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or
inherently. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d
1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As stated in In re Oelrich, 666
F.2d 578, 581, 212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981) (quoting Hansgirg v.
Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212, 214, 40 USPQ 665, 667 (CCPA 1939))
(internal citations omitted):
Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities
or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may
result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.
If, however, the disclosure is sufficient to show that the
natural result flowing from the operation as taught would
result in the performance of the questioned function, it
seems to be well settled that the disclosure should be
regarded as sufficient.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007