Appeal No. 2004-0852
Application No. 09/354,651 Page 4
Upon consideration of the record before us, we reverse,
essentially for the reasons set forth by appellants.
We turn first to claim 1. 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.
Turning to claim 1, appellants assert (brief, page 5) that
in Rekhter, since the CE routers do not exchange routing
information with each other, there is no virtual backbone for the
enterprise to manage. It is argued (id.) that Rekhter “does not
require the exchange of any routing information between said
customer enterprise end points, i.e.[,] the originating end point
does not provide its IP address and a session identifier to the
destination end point, nor does the destination end point return
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007