Appeal 2006-3345
Application 10/256,982
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the
claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2
USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987).
“To 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.
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.” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51 (Fed.
Cir. 1999) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue claims 1-13 as a first group and claims 14-18 as a second
group. We select claim 9 as a representative claim from the first group and claim
14 as a representative claim from the second group.
Claim 9, directed to a method for vacuum sealing a package, requires
“continuously heating at least one sealing bar during each of the supporting,
generating, and closing steps.” The generating step recites “generating a vacuum
in the chamber.” Thus, we interpret the heating step to require continuous heating
of the sealing bar while the vacuum is being generated.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013