Appeal No. 98-2124 Page 10
Application No. 08/454,898
959, 189 USPQ 149, 151-52 (CCPA 1976)), and it is well settled
that if a prior art device inherently possesses the capability
of functioning in the manner claimed, anticipation exists
regardless of whether there was a recognition that it could be
used to perform the claimed function (see, e.g., In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed.
Cir. 1997)).
With respect to claims 12 and 13 the appellants argue that
Biechler does not teach that the contacts 90 and 74 might be
disposed in different portions of the housing. This is simply
not the case. Viewing Figs. 3 and 4 of Biechler, it is readily
apparent that of the contact elements 90 and 74 are positioned
in the left-hand housing 62 of subassembly 60 and certain of
the contact elements 90 and 74 are positioned in the right-hand
housing 62 of the subassembly 60. Moreover, the broad
recitation of first and second "portions" does not preclude the
arrangement of only one of these housings when considered alone
wherein the "portions" are of integral, one-piece construction
with the housing.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007