Ex parte SAITO et al. - Page 7




            Appeal No. 1998-2775                                                                         
            Application 08/574,544                                                                       


            that the allegedly inherent features necessarily flow from                                   
            the teachings of the applied reference.  See Ex parte Levy,                                  
            17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (BPAI 1990) and cases cited therein.                                    


                  In the present case, it does not necessarily flow from                                 
            Lewis’ disclosure that Lewis’ upper strap E is inherently                                    
            capable of rotation to a position where the unlabeled                                        
            circumferential shoulder on the generally circular portion                                   
            acts as a stop for the reasons stated by appellants on pages                                 
            6 and 7 of the main brief.  Accordingly, we are constrained                                  
            to reverse the  102(b) rejection of claim 6 and the                                         
             102(b) rejection of dependent claims 7 through 10 since                                    
            Lewis does not expressly or inherently meet all of the                                       
            limitations in claim 6.  See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473,                                 
            1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (To anticipate a                                 
            claim, a prior art reference must disclose every limitation                                  
            of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently.).                                 


                  We also cannot sustain the  103 rejection of dependent                                
            claim 5.  The examiner has not supplied any motivation to                                    
            establish that it would have been obvious to enable Lewis’                                   

                                                  7                                                      




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007