Appeal No. 2000-0408
Application No. 08/917,480 Page 3
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
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.
Thus, a prior art reference may anticipate when the claim
limitation or limitations not expressly found in that reference
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007