Appeal No. 2005-0644 5
Application No. 09/804,522
In summary, the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 6 through 8 and 13 is
reversed because the examiner has not provided extrinsic evidence, rather than
opinion, that makes clear that “the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in
the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of
ordinary skill.” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 744-45, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51 (Fed.
Cir. 1999). Inherency “may not be established by probabilities or possibilities.” In re
Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581, 212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981).
The obviousness rejections of claims 3 through 5, 9 through 12 and 14 through
20 are reversed because the references to Martin and Ross fail to cure the noted
shortcoming in the teachings of Maekawa.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007