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 sustain
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007