Ex Parte Massey - Page 8




              Appeal No. 2005-1843                                                                 Page 8                
              Application No. 09/585,222                                                                                 



                            machining a throughbore in said barstock symmetrically about the offset                      
                     throughbore axis to produce an eccentrically located throughbore defining a                         
                     thicker portion and a thinner portion of said barstock outer wall;                                  
                            machining a valve stem bore perpendicular to said throughbore in the                         
                     thicker portion of the barstock outer wall Iocated a maximum distance from said                     
                     offset throughbore axis;                                                                            
                            selecting a standard size valve stem to be inserted in the valve stem bore                   
                     in the thicker portion of the barstock outer wall resulting in the thinner portion of               
                     the barstock wall positioned opposite the valve stem; and                                           
                            installing the standard size valve stem in said valve stem bore.                             


                     The sole basis for this rejection as set forth in the final rejection (p. 3) is that                
              "[t]he method of making is either inherent or obvious in view of Matousek's machined                       
              valve."                                                                                                    


                     The method of claim 6 is not inherent from Matousek's ball valve.  In that regard,                  
              it is not inherent1 that Matousek's operating stem 26 be a standard size valve stem.  As                   

                     1It is well-settled that under principles of inherency, when a reference is silent                  
              about an asserted inherent characteristic, it must be clear that the missing descriptive                   
              matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be                
              so recognized by persons of ordinary skill.  Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948                      
              F.2d 1264, 1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 1991).  As the court 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)):                                                  
                     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. [Citations omitted.]  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                               
                                                                                            (continued...)               







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007