Appeal No. 2003-0325
Application No. 08/775,077 Page 4
have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in
reaching our decision, appellants' arguments set forth in the
briefs along with the examiner's rationale in support of the
rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner's
answer.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we reverse,
essentially for the reasons set forth by appellants. We begin
with the rejection of claims 1, 5, 14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Loucks.
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.
The examiner's position is set forth on pages 4-6 of the
examiner's answer. Specifically, the examiner asserts (answer,
page 4) that service 514 of Loucks relates to applicants'
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007