Appeal No. 96-1747
Application 08/299,839
581, 212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981).
With the above in mind, it is our view that Vario does
not expressly or inherently describe that the bent or saddle
shaped portions in the rod (10) are coplanar. In order for
the bent or saddle shaped portions shown in Figure 1 of the
reference to be coplanar, each of the illustrated four
segments spanning the distance between stops (12) must be3
coplanar. We note that Vario describes Figure 1 as a
"perspective view" (col. 2, line 5). As such, we cannot say
with the necessary degree of certainty that the four segments
all lie in the same plane. It may be that they do. It may
also be true that they do not. The important point here is
that we just don’t know. We must resort to speculation
in order to determine if Vario actually teaches that the bent
or saddle shaped portions are coplanar and we cannot bottom a
finding that Vario expressly or inherently describes each and
every element of the claim on such speculation. Thus, the
rejection under § 102 cannot be sustained.
3 The four segments are indicated by numerals 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the copy
of Vario's Figure 1 attached as an "appendix" to appellant's brief.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007