Appeal 2006-1508
Application 10/254,979
1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1990). Inherency 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. Ex parte Skinner, 2 USPQ2d
1788, 1789 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1986). The examiner’s
observation that Ichimaru does not disclose that shaft 31 is
permanently attached to rotating member 2 is not technical
reasoning as to why there necessarily is a gap between those
parts. Thus, the examiner has not carried the burden required
for a prima facie showing of an inherent gap between Ichimaru’s
rotating member 2 and shaft 31.
The examiner relies upon Kobayashi only for a suggestion
to include a latch on Ichimaru’s container (answer, page 4),
and not for any disclosure that remedies the above-discussed
deficiency in Ichimaru.
For the above reasons we conclude that the examiner has
not established a prima facie case of obviousness of the
appellant’s claimed invention.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013