Appeal No. 1998-1642 Page 5
Application No. 08/541,894
clause of claim 24. We have reviewed the specification and
note that the specification does not specifically define
“tension.” Tension is defined in the dictionary as the state
of being stretched. Webster’s II New Riverside University
Dictionary, The Riverside University Publishing Company
(1984). The specification states that the blade shoulders 68
and 69 of the blade are forced against ears 45 and 46 and that
the blade is urged inwardly because the engaging member 56 is
forced against the back of hole 66 (See specification at page
6). This engagement of the blade would result in stretching
or tension on the blade.
In regard to the examiner’s finding of inherency, it
is well settled that the burden of establishing a prima facie
case of anticipation resides with the Patent and Trademark
Office. See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ
785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). When 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. See Continental
Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007