Appeal No. 96-0969
Application 08/200,420
However, mere possibilities or even probabilities are not
enough to establish inherency. See In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d
578, 581, 212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981). Accordingly,
DeQuillfeldt’s disclosure that ball valve F may be made of
“rubber or other elastic material” is insufficient to
established a prima facie case of inherency with respect to
the buoyancy characteristic called for in the appealed claims.
In response to appellant’s argument in the brief, the
examiner advanced the following theory of operation of the
DeQuillfeldt device in an attempt to bolster his position of
inherency:
In order for the stopper of DeQuillfeldt to operate
and function as disclosed, the valve (F) must be
able to float in the liquid present in the bottle.
Otherwise, if the valve were made such that it did
not float, when the bottle is inverted to dispense
the liquid, the valve (F) would leave its resting
position on the pins (n) and, by force of gravity
and of the liquid, fall into the position shown in
figure 1 of the drawings. Thereby, resealing the
bottle, not allowing the liquid to be dispensed and
rendering the invention inoperable. [Answer, page
4.]
We cannot support this theory of operation. DeQuillfeldt
states that the bottle-stopper disclosed therein is “of that
class . . . [wherein] the stopper (with the valve in it) is
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007