Appeal No. 96-2341
Application 08/389,554
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).
In the present case, the examiner has not provided the
required evidence or technical reasoning which shows that
Wilkins’ composition, when the thickener is colloidal alumina,
necessarily is shear thinnable.
We note that Wilkins does not disclose an example wherein
the thickener is colloidal alumina. Thus, there is no
specifically disclosed composition which may be considered to
be sufficiently similar to appellants’ composition that the
properties of the compositions are substantially the same.
See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657-58
(Fed. Cir. 1990).
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007