Appeal No. 1999-0933 Page 6
Application No. 08/512,396
Responding to the examiner’s position quoted above, appellants also urge (reply brief,
page 2) that
[t]he fluid can return to the master cylinder 3 without use of the
pump because the wheel cylinder 8 always biases the fluid introduced
thereto with a small force to get the fluid out of the wheel cylinder 8 so
that the braking operation is carried out only when pressurized brake
fluid is applied to the wheel cylinder. Thus, when the brake pedal is
not depressed, pressure in the master cylinder 3 is equal to atmospheric
pressure. Because of this imbalance of pressure, the fluid can return
from the wheel cylinder 8 to the master cylinder 3 just by opening the inlet
valve 20 and shutoff valve 32. Thus, the assumption that the process of
returning the fluid from the brake wheel cylinders via the closing of the inlet
valves and the corresponding opening of the outlet valves is the only way
that fluid from the wheel cylinder can return to the master cylinder is
clearly erroneous.
Like appellants, we find the examiner’s position that the claimed subject matter
as set forth in claim 1 on appeal is clearly anticipated by Willmann to be in error. In
our opinion, the examiner’s determination is made without any clear support in the
applied reference and is based on speculation and conjecture on the examiner's part.
In this regard, we note that it is well settled that inherency may not be established by
probabilities or possibilities, but must instead be "the natural result flowing from the
operation as taught." See In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d, 578, 581, 212 USPQ 323, 326
(CCPA 1981). In the present case, the disclosure
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007