Appeal No. 2002-0894
Application No. 09/283,650
Neyland’s plate 42 is dimensioned to maintain a clearance,
clearly shown in Figure 6, with the inner diameter of the body 15
of the compartment as the plate move along the compartment
(column 4, lines 51-55), and in that the compartment floor is
fitted with wear members 16 and 17 that cooperate with the wheels
47, 48 on the lower margins of the plate 42 to maintain this
clearance throughout the plate’s movement.
It is well settled that inherency may not be established by
probabilities and 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 of Neyland does not provide an adequate
factual basis to establish that the natural result flowing from
following the teachings of that reference would be an ejector
blade that tilts at its upper margins toward the open end of the
compartment to press the lower margin of the blade against the
floor of the compartment as load material is ejected, as claimed
by appellants.
It follows from the above that the rejection of the appealed
claims as being unpatentable over Neyland cannot be sustained.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007