Appeal No. 2005-2736 Παγε 5
Application No. 09/966,288
Refrigeration v. Kysor Indus. Corp., 777 F.2d 687, 689, 227 USPQ 845, 846-847 (Fed.
Cir. 1985). Rather, if a claimed element (or elements) is inherent in a prior art
reference, then that element (or elements) is disclosed for purposes of finding
anticipation. See Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d at 631-33,
2 USPQ2d at 1052-54.
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 (F3d. 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. Id at 1269, 20
USPQ2s at 1749 (quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581, 212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA
1981).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007