Ex parte SAITO et al. - Page 6

            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                                  

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007