REVERSED

2600 Communications
Ex Parte Kent et al NAPPI 103(a) AT&T

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Sirvio et al STAICOVICI 103(a) CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP

Ex Parte Flick BAHR 102(b)/103(a) ALLEN, DYER, DOPPELT, MILBRATH & GILCHRIST P.A.

It is well established that claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, see, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In order to satisfy the functional limitations in an apparatus claim, however, the prior art apparatus must be capable of performing the claimed function. Id. at 1478.

Schreiber, In re, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . 2111.02, 2112, 2114

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex Parte O'Brien et al STAICOVICI 102(b)/103(a) CROMPTON, SEAGER & TUFTE, LLC

“Inherent anticipation requires that the missing descriptive material is ‘necessarily present,’ not merely probably or possibly present, in the prior art.” Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Top-U.S.A. Corp., 295 F.3d 1292, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). ... As such, we agree with Appellants that the sheath 17 of Barath is not necessarily capable of radial compression, as the Examiner suggests. See Reply Br. 5.

Robertson, In re, 169 F.3d 743, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . 2112, 2114, 2163, 2163.07(a)

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Lee et al NAPPI 102(e) ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM