Appeal No. 96-1603
Application 08/057,989
and screw drive for slide
mechanism 16, 17 took up normal
slack between its nut and screw.
[Examiner’s Answer at page 5]
In essence, it is the examiner’s position that the slide
mechanism 16, 17 of Kato inherently absorbs force applied to
the support means to prevent the applied force from being
transmitted to the table.
In relying upon the 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 prior art. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326,
231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986); W. L. Gore & Associates,
Inc. V. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1555, 220 USPQ 303, 313
(Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581, 212 USPQ
323, 326 (CCPA 1981); In re Wilding, 535 F.2d 631, 635, 190
USPQ 59, 63 (CCPA 1976); Hansgirg v. Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212,
214, 40 USPQ 665, 667 (CCPA 1939).
The examiner in the instant case has provided no basis in
fact or technical reasoning for concluding that the nut and
screw arrangement of Kato absorbs forces applied to the
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007