Appeal No. 2000-0408
Application No. 08/917,480 Page 4
are nonetheless inherent in it. See In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d at
581, 212 USPQ at 326; Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814
F.2d 628, 630, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Under the
principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily functions
in accordance with, or includes, the claimed limitations, it
anticipates. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986). However, inherency is not necessarily
coterminous with the knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the
art. See Mehl/Biophile Int'l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362,
1365, 52 USPQ2d 1303, 1305-06 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Atlas Powder Co.
v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1946-47 (Fed.
Cir. 1999).
With this as background, we analyze the single prior art
reference applied by the examiner in the rejection of the claims
on appeal.
Ashkenas' invention relates to anti-stall slots for
airplanes, and more particularly, to a means and method for
controlling tip stall in airplanes having swept-back wing panels.
One wing panel W of an all-wing army bomber is shown in Figure 1.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007