Appeal No. 1998-0692
Application No. 08/693,551
corresponding portions of the circuit meet the recited
limitations [emphasis in the original].” While we might
agree, the examiner has not pointed to any such one scenario
in Gregor wherein the claimed subject matter is anticipated.
In any event, the examiner has alleged “inherency” and
inherency 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 to
establish “inherency.” Hansgirg v. Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212, 214,
40 USPQ 665, 667 (CCPA 1939).
We further agree with appellant [principal brief-page 8]
that the “maximum propagation delay” in accordance with the
invention “is the propagation delay required to maintain the
operating frequency of the component...Gregor does not teach
or suggest that the devices 19 and 20, or the devices 22 and
23 are in a critical path such that the operating frequency of
the components including these devices is affected by the
propagation delay through these devices.”
Thus, it appears to us that the examiner’s premise of
anticipation rests on speculation and speculation is not a
proper basis for a finding of anticipation. Accordingly, we
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007