Appeal No. 2003-0470
Application 09/671,870
of the reply brief and the conclusion therein that the
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
anticipation.
In our opinion, the examiner’s position is totally
without support in the applied Paulson patent and is
entirely 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, neither the Paulson patent nor
the examiner provides an adequate factual basis to establish
that the natural result flowing from following the teachings
of that patent would be a method for reducing noise emitted
by a flow of exhaust from a jet propulsion engine like that
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007