Appeal No. 2005-0289 Page 8
Application No. 09/491,841
technical reasoning to support a conclusion sealing lips
necessarily flow from the disclosure of Ellinwood.”
The examiner's position (answer, page 3) is that in the
embodiment of figures 5-8 of Ellinwood, base structure 10, 13 is
adapted to be tensioned around a coaxial cable, and that the
edges 13 of cushion 13 are sealing lips that project, in the area
of 13 in figure 7 "for providing a seal.” The examiner
additionally relies upon element 10 of Ellinwood for the claimed
electrically conducting contact element, which includes metallic
contact protrusion 14.
A prior art reference may anticipate without disclosing a
feature of the claimed invention if that missing characteristic
is necessarily present, or inherent, in the single anticipating
reference. Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264,
1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc.,
339 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 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.
From our review of Ellinwood, we make the following findings
of fact:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007