Ex Parte DOHNER et al - Page 4




              Appeal No. 2001-1235                                                         Paper 14                     
              Application No. 08/951,943                                                   Page 4                       
              inherent to the disclosure of Campbell” (answer, p. 3).  The examiner maintains that the                  
              method disclosed by Campbell and appellants’ claimed method “appear to be                                 
              equivalent” (answer, p. 4).                                                                               
                     The examiner is not convinced of any patentable differences because                                
                     Campbell’s specification include the limitations claimed by appellants, as                         
                     is noted above [i.e., the articles are heated to a temperature above the                           
                     melting point of the crystalline hydrate].  It is inherent that the heating of                     
                     each individual laminate can be performed immediately following                                    
                     lamination.  Although, the reference prefers to heat the laminations after                         
                     being placed in their packages.  Therefore, the claimed limitations are                            
                     seen to be inherent over the Campbell reference.  [Answer, p. 5,                                   
                     emphasis in the original.]                                                                         
                     First, anticipation requires that all elements of the claimed invention be                         
              described, either expressly or under the principles of inherency, in a single prior art                   
              reference.  In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir.                         
              1994); In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990).                              
              Second, it is well established that inherency cannot be established by probabilities or                   
              possibilities.  In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581, 212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981) citing                    
              Hansgirg v. Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212, 214, 40 USPQ 665, 667 (CCPA 1939).                                      
                     Here, as pointed out by appellants, “Campbell does not disclose annealing each                     
              individual film or laminate nor performing the annealing immediately following formation                  
              and/or lamination” (brief, p. 7).  Moreover, to the extent that Campbell suggests                         
              “crystallization seemed to appear after the step in which the multilaminate film is cut                   
              into individual devices” (c. 2, ll. 36-38), the examiner has not explained why one of                     
              ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ one or more heating steps                   
              prior to cutting laminated films into individual devices as required by all the independent               






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007