Appeal No. 2000-0941 Page 9
Application No. 09/077,362
rolled up condition" is not readable on Koller's ruffle 8. In
that regard, we find no disclosure in Koller that his ruffle 8
rolls up with shade panel 6 onto the roller assembly 4. To
anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every
limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or
inherently. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d
1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As stated in In re Oelrich, 666
F.2d 578, 581, 212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981) (quoting Hansgirg
v. Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212, 214, 40 USPQ 665, 667 (CCPA 1939))
(internal citations omitted):
Inherency, however, 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. 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.
Since all the limitations of independent claim 1 are not
disclosed in Koller for the reason set forth above, the
decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 and
10 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Koller is reversed.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007