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