Appeal No. 2006-0629 Παγε 4
Application No. 10/668,021
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 make the
determinations which follow. Turning to the rejection of claims
1-9, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) or (e) as being
anticipated by Lin, we begin with claim 1. We note as background
that 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.
Appellants argue (brief, page 4) to the effect that Lin is
directed to a wafer polishing subsystem, not a conditioner
subsystem of a chemical mechanical polisher. It is argued (id.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007