Ex Parte UDAYAKUMAR et al - Page 4


             Appeal No. 2002-1205                                                                            
             Application No. 09/422,380                                                                      

                   We note that when an examiner relies upon a theory of inherency,                          
             the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning                            
             to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent                             
             characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied                              
             art.  Ex Parte Levy, 17 USQP2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int.                                 
             1990).  Inherency “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.  Ex Parte Skinner, 2                              
             USPQ2d 1788, 1789 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1986).  Also, the examiner                              
             has the initial burden of providing such evidence or technical                                  
             reasons.  See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657                              
             (Fed. Cir. 1990).                                                                               
                   In the present case, on pages 5 and 6 of the answer, the                                  
             examiner states that because Yamanaka discloses a sealing composition                           
             that includes a lead titanate powder having the specified formula,                              
             “[t]he taught titanate is a ferroelectric material.”  Yet, the                                  
             examiner does not provide evidence or technical reasoning in support                            
             thereof.                                                                                        
                   We have carefully reviewed the English translation of Yamanaka.                           
             We observe that on page 9 of the English translation, a discussion of                           
             how the samples, shown in Table 2, are made, is set forth.                                      
                   The process for making the samples in Table 2 includes mixing                             
             certain raw materials, baking them at from 1100 to 1350ºC for a                                 
             period of five hours, followed by crushing and passing the material                             
             through a screen to achieve a particular particle diameter.                                     
                   The annealing conditions used in making the ferroelectric                                 
             material according to appellants’ invention is set forth on pages 5-7                           
             of appellants’ specification.  The temperature ranges are from 475ºC                            
             to as high as 700ºC, and the period of time at which the material is                            
             annealed ranges from 10 seconds to 60 minutes.  This is in stark                                
             contrast to the aforementioned temperature and time ranges set forth                            
             on page 9 of the English translation of Yamanaka.                                               



                                                       4                                                     



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007