Appeal 2007-1370
Application 10/250,360
ISSUE
Has the Examiner demonstrated that Vane’s composite laminate
comprising a layup of non-woven fiber plies bonded in a matrix material
inherently (necessarily) possesses at least one hairy yarn in at least one of
the fiber plies as evidenced by Phillips and Cheshire within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 102(b)?
RELEVANT FACTUAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
To establish anticipation within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102, a
single prior art reference must teach either expressly or inherently each and
every limitation recited in the claims on appeal. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d
1473, 1477, 44 USPQ 2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “Extrinsic evidence
may be considered when it is used to explain, but not to expand, the meaning
of a reference.” In re Baxter Travenol Labs, 952 F.2d 388, 390, 21 USPQ2d
1281, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
“[When] relying upon the theory of inherency, the [E]xaminer 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.” Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ 2d
1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1990). Inherency cannot be established
based on possibilities or probabilities. In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 ,
212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981).
Here, the Examiner has found (Answer 3-4) that:
VANE teaches reinforcing material that has a plurality of
superimposed layers; each layer of the reinforcing material
includes a plurality of unidirectional nonwoven yarns or
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013