Appeal No. 2002-1471 Page 5
Application No. 09/141,183
F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As
stated in In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581, 212 USPQ 323, 326
(CCPA 1981) (quoting Hansgirg v. Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212, 214, 40
USPQ 665, 667 (CCPA 1939)) (internal citations omitted):
Inherency, however, may 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.
If, however, the disclosure is sufficient to show that the
natural result flowing from the operation as taught would
result in the performance of the questioned function, it
seems to be well settled that the disclosure should be
regarded as sufficient.
Appellants assert (brief, page 5) that “[c]laim 1 requires
that the load beam include ‘a first slide capture adapted to
slidably secure the conductor sleeve to the rigid section of the
load beam, wherein when slidably securing the conductor sleeve to
the rigid section of the load beam, the first slide capture
allows the conductor sleeve to move longitudinally therethrough
in a first direction which is coincident with a longitudinal axis
of the conductor sleeve proximate the first slide capture, while
substantially constraining the conductor sleeve from moving in
all directions orthogonal to the first direction.”
Appellants assert (brief, page 6) that in Hagen (col. 5,
lines 17-20) that capture tabs 34, 36 on load beam 60 function
the same as capture tabs 38, 40 on load beam 12, and that capture
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007