Appeal No. 96-1834
Application 08/046,945
Even when viewed in a light most favorable to the examiner’s
position, the most that can be said is that there is a
possibility that the skeletal supports of Despujols and Poirier
might somehow be assembled and disassembled from within the
fabric closet component. Inherency, however, may not be
established by probabilities or possibilities. See In re
Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581, 212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981) and In
re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1534, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1957 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
Since we find nothing in either Despujols or Poirier which
teaches or fairly suggests the method steps set forth in claim 1,
we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of this claim under
35 U.S.C. § 103 based on these two references.
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b) we make the
following new rejection.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
In order to satisfy the requirements of the second paragraph of
§ 112, a claim must accurately define the invention in the
technical sense. See In re Knowlton, 481 F.2d 1357, 1366, 178
USPQ 486, 492-93 (CCPA 1973). Here, claim 1 sets forth that the
skeletal support is erected within the interior of the fabric
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007