Appeal No. 1998-1642 Page 6 Application No. 08/541,894 1749 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1990). Hoffman discloses a blade, depicted in Figures 8a-8c which is held between balls 218, 222 and 224. Hoffman does not disclose any force exerted by balls 218, 222 and 224 which would result in the blade being held under tension. Hoffman discloses that sleeve 208 itself confines the blade against any movement in the plane of the slot (Col. 8, lines 19 through 26). While it is true that there may be a certain amount of bending and thereby stretching of the blade, depending on how the balls engage the recesses, the examiner has not advanced a rationale which would establish that this will necessarily be the case. We note that inherency can 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. Continental at 1269, 20 USPQ2d at 1749 (quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581, 212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981). In view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of anticipation based on inherency. As such, we will not sustainPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007