Appeal No. 2006-0486 Page 9
Application No. 10/300,916
of record. This because Cussons discloses a retractable landing
gear having a casing 33 in a spaced apart relationship therewith
(e.g., see Figure 1). As properly indicated by the appellants,
this reference contains no express disclosure that casing 33
performs a noise-reducing function of the type required by the
appealed claims. The question which remains, however, is whether
this functional limitation of the appealed claims is inherently
satisfied by patentee’s casing. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d
1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
It is, of course, the examiner’s initial burden of
establishing a reasonable basis for an inherency determination.
Id. Also see Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1463-64 (Bd. Pat.
App. & Int. 1990). In this case, a reasonable basis for an
inherency determination might be provided by the fact that
patentee’s casing 33 and the appellants’ claimed noise-reducing
attachment both possess the aforementioned “spaced apart
relationship” and both possess certain structural similarities
(e.g., compare casing 33 as illustrated in Figure 1 of Cussons
with fairing attachment 93 as illustrated in Figure 2 of
appellants’ drawing).
In light of the foregoing, the examiner must respond to this
remand by addressing and resolving on the written record the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007