Appeal No. 1999-2458 Page 6
Application No. 08/851,693
omitted.] 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.
Here, the examiner's determination that Huang meets "the
substantially no gap clause" is entirely speculative. It is
our opinion that the examiner has not provided any evidence or
scientific reasoning to establish the reasonableness of his
belief that "the substantially no gap clause" of claim 1 is an
inherent characteristic of Huang. In that regard, with
respect to the perspective view seen in Figure 3 of Huang, we
find that the size of the gap between the corner post 605 and
the endfitting 20 is undeterminable. Furthermore, we agree
with the appellant (brief, pp. 4-5) that the size of the gap
between the corner post 605 and the endfitting 20 apparent
from an examination of Figure 5 of Huang is of such a size as
not to be readable on "the substantially no gap clause" of
claim 1.
For the reasons set forth above, Huang does not meet all
the limitations of claim 1 and therefore does not anticipate
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007