Appeal No. 2004-0820
Application No. 09/317,312 Page 5
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).
Appellant asserts (brief, pages 3 and 4) that even if the
examiner is correct that scrolling by one party causes scrolling
to occur in documents displayed to other parties, that the claims
are still not met by Glaser, because the claims state that
certain events occur in the remote computers after the scrolling
terminates. It is argued (brief, page 5) that as everyone knows,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007