Appeal No. 1998-2775
Application 08/574,544
The examiner takes the position, in substance, that the
other, unlabeled circumferential shoulder will inherently
act as a stop to limit rotation of the upper strap e to a
kneeling position. The examiner’s reasoning follows:
The Lewis specification, contrary to the
Appellant’s [sic] comments, very plainly provides
support for the Examiner’s position that the thigh
socket A is flexible enough to permit the
shoulders of the joint e to contact one another at
full flexion. If the “sole-leather” is “of
sufficient elasticity to adapt itself to the shape
of the limb” (lines 30-32), then it will certainly
offer little if any resistance to a contacting
wooden leg member D. [Answer, page 5.]
Admittedly, the upper strap E may be capable of
rotation in a counterclockwise direction to a position where
the arcuate portion on the upper strap abuts the unlabeled
circumferential shoulder on the generally circular portion
of the lower strap so that the unlabeled shoulder acts as a
stop. However, as stated in In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578,
581, 212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981), inherency may not be
established by possibilities or even probabilities.
Instead, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or
technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007