Appeal No. 1999-2450 Page 8
Application No. 08/812,222
speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction
to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.” In re Warner,
379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967). "In
relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must
provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to
reasonably support the determination that the allegedly
inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings
of the applied prior art." Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461,
1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1990) (citing In re King, 801 F.2d
1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986); W.L. Gore & Assocs. v.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983);
In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 212 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981); In re
Wilding, 535 F.2d 631, 190 USPQ 59 (CCPA 1976); Hansgirg v.
Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212, 40 USPQ 665 (CCPA 1939)).
Here, the section of Tanamachi cited by the examiner
mentions that, “in the case of a color display device, a
plurality of color filters are formed so as to be associated
with the signal electrodes D, respectively.” Col. 7, ll. 26-
28. Although the reference’s plurality of color filters are
associated with its signal electrodes, the examiner fails to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007