Ex Parte Ebert - Page 6

                Appeal 2007-0787                                                                              
                Application 10/689,230                                                                        
           1    shank 20 is made of metal nor is it apparent that the Tokarz’s shank would                    
           2    inherently be of metal.  While it is possible or even probable that one having                
           3    ordinary skill in the art would understand the shank to be made of metal, that                
           4    fact is insufficient to establish inherency.  The missing disclosure must                     
           5    necessarily flow from the references teachings.  Robertson, 169 F.3d at 745,                  
           6    49 USPQ2d at 1951.  Probabilities and possibilities are insufficient to                       
           7    establish inherency.  Continental Can, 948 F.2d 1264 at 1269, 20 USPQ2d                       
           8    at 1749.  Tokarz does not expressly or inherently describe a shank made of                    
           9    metal.  Absent a basis for comparison, Tokarz can not describe a handle                       
          10    made of a material more fragile than the material of the shank.                               
          11          While we view as correct the Examiner’s finding that one skilled in                     
          12    the relevant art would recognize that the shank portion of Tokarz handle                      
          13    would likely be a metal such as chrome plated brass, that finding does not                    
          14    establish anticipation.  Inferences that the person of ordinary in the art might              
          15    draw from the express teachings of a reference while relevant to obviousness                  
          16    under § 103(a), do not establish anticipation.  The Federal Circuit                           
          17    specifically addressed this issue :                                                           
          18                 The [district court] opinion says anticipation may be                            
          19                 shown by less than “complete anticipation” if one of                             
          20                 ordinary skill may in reliance on the prior art “complete                        
          21                 the work required for the invention”, and that “it is                            
          22                 sufficient for an anticipation ‘if the general aspects are                       
          23                 the same and the differences in minor matters is only                            
          24                 such as would suggest itself to one of ordinary skill in the                     
          25                 art.’ “Those statements relate to obviousness, not                               
          26                 anticipation. Anticipation requires the presence in a                            
          27                 single prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed                         
          28                 invention arranged as in the claim. A prior art disclosure                       
          29                 that “almost” meets that standard may render the claim                           
          30                 invalid under §103; it does not “anticipate.”                                    

                                                     - 6 -                                                    

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

Last modified: September 9, 2013