Appeal No. 2003-1279
Application 09/455,621
specification (see column 6, lines 6-30) simply do not support
the examiner’s assertion that the spring functions to hold the
entire module together as a self-contained unit. Further, we do
not find that Knight inherently discloses this feature of the
invention since appellants have provided an equally plausible
explanation as to how Knight’s assembly is held together (see
Appeal Brief, page 6). See Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Top-U.S.A.
Corp., 295 F.3d 1292, 1295, 63 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir.
2002)(“Inherent anticipation requires that the missing
descriptive material is ‘necessarily present,’ not merely
probably or possibly present, in the prior art.”).
Accordingly, the rejection is reversed.
2. Rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Knight
Claim 5 depends from independent claim 1. Having found
that the examiner has failed to establish that Knight discloses
or suggests the claim 1 feature of a “spring having opposite ends
fixed to the pusher member and the pin keeper to hold the entire
module together as a self-contained unit,” we conclude that the
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obvious-
ness with respect to claim 5.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007