Appeal No. 2001-0484 Page 4
Application No. 09/116,409
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.
Thus, a prior art reference may anticipate when the claim
limitation or limitations not expressly found in that
reference are nonetheless inherent in it. See In re Oelrich,
666 F.2d at 581, 212 USPQ at 326; Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v.
Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 630, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). Under the principles of inherency, if the prior
art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the
claimed limitations, it anticipates. See In re King, 801 F.2d
1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim 1 reads as follows:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007