Appeal No. 96-1747
Application 08/299,839
on the reference (answer, page 6). Appellant, on the other
hand, argues that the examiner's "assumption" that the three
bent portions or kinks are coplanar is not justified by Figure
1 or supported by any description thereof in the specification
(brief, pages 5 and 6).
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires that each and
every element as set forth in the claim be found, either
expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
reference. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d
628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 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. Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto
Co., 948 F.2d 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
from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient." Id. at
1269, 20 USPQ2d at 1749 (quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007