Appeal No. 2002-1685 Page 4
Application No. 08/995,431
See Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631-33,
2 USPQ2d 1051, 1052-54 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827
(1987).
It is well settled that the burden of establishing a prima
facie case of anticipation resides with the Patent and Trademark
Office (PTO). See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ
785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). When 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. See Continental Can Co. v.
Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed Cir.
1991); Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Patent App. &
Int. 1990). Inherency, however, 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 Can Co., 948 F.2d at 1269, 20 USPQ2d at
1749 (quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581, 212 USPQ 323, 326
(CCPA 1981).
After the PTO establishes a prima facie case of anticipation
based on inherency, the burden shifts to the appellant to prove
that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007