Appeal No. 96-1320
Application 08/081,744
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." Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d
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).
The examiner has not provided the required evidence or
technical reasoning which reasonably shows that abrasion of
the FRP surface, which Holmes clearly indicates is to be
avoided (col. 7, lines 1-2), necessarily results from the
sanding of Holmes’ adhesive. Instead, the examiner has merely
asserted that such abrasion is possible or probable.
Smock is relied upon by the examiner for a disclosure of
preheating an FRP part so that there is less air in the part
when a sealing liquid containing suspended particles is
applied to the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007