Source: http://www.ptab.us/2009/09/11639152-ex-parte-imai-10462193-ex.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 10:40:53+00:00

Document:
In general, a limitation is inherent if it is the “natural result flowing from” the explicit disclosure of the prior art. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., 339 F.3d 1373, 1379, 67 USPQ2d 1664 (Fed.Cir. 2003).
Ex Parte Ferencz et al WARREN 102(b)/103(a) PPG INDUSTRIES, INC.
Ex Parte Gravelle BAUMEISTER 103(a) CAESAR, RIVISE, BERNSTEIN, COHEN & POKOTILOW, LTD.
such a reconstruction is proper.
In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, , 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Ex Parte Wetzel et al HAIRSTON 102(b)/103(a) BEUSSE WOLTER SANKS MORA & MAIRE, P. A.
First of all, we do not believe that “substantially” renders the claimed subject matter indefinite in this case. “Substantially” is often used to mean largely but not wholly what is specified. See, e.g., York Products, Inc., v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Center, 99 F.3d 1568, 1572-73, 40 USPQ2d 1619 (Fed. Cir. 1996); See also, Amhil Enterprises Ltd. v. Wawa, Inc., 81 F.3d 1554, 1562, (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Ex Parte Oddsen et al PATE, III 102(b) DESIGN IP, P.C.
We are in agreement with Appellants’ argument that the incorporation of the rain water trough in the mounting bar as disclosed by Appellants does reflect a certain synergy that is indicative of nonobviousness. See Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 60-62, 163 USPQ 673 (1969).
“[A] claim preamble has the import that the claim as a whole suggests for it.” Bell Commuc’ns Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Commuc’ns Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620, 34 USPQ2d 1816 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “[I]f the claim preamble is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim, then the claim preamble shouldbe construed as if in the balance of the claim.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951) (A preamble reciting “‘An abrasive article’” was deemed essential to point out the invention defined by claims to an article comprising abrasive grains and a hardened binder and the process of making it. The court stated “it is only by that phrase that it can be known that the subject matter defined by the claims is comprised as an abrasive article. Every union of substances capable inter alia of use as abrasive grains and a binder is not an ‘abrasive article.’” Therefore, the preamble served to further define the structure of the article produced.).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.