Appeal No. 2003-1285
Application 09/751,513
a first tooth engages one of the ribs on a first belt module and
one of the second surfaces on a second tooth simultaneously
engages one of the link ends on the first belt module” (emphasis
added)(claim 9), 2) “means for engaging the modular belt such
that each belt module is simultaneously engaged by a center
driving surface and a link end driving surface on the engaging
means” (emphasis added)(claim 16), or 3) the step of engaging a
drive sprocket with a modular belt “such that each belt module is
simultaneously driven by a first tooth in a first tooth pair and
a second tooth in a second pair of teeth adjacent to the first
pair” (emphasis added)(claim 17).
The examiner’s assertion of inherency in the final rejection
and further assertion that the showing in Figure 6 of Horton
“makes clear that the two arrangements can be used
simultaneously” (answer, page 3) are simply not supported by any
disclosure or showing in the Horton patent and, in our view, are
based entirely on speculation and conjecture on the examiner's
part. It is well settled that inherency may not be established
by probabilities or possibilities, but must instead be "the
natural result flowing from the operation as taught." See In re
Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581, 212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981). In
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007