Appeal Number: 2006-2066
Application Number: 10/743,461
The examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima
facie case of anticipation by pointing out where all of the
claim limitations appear in a single reference. See In re
Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990);
In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327, 231 USPQ 136, 138-39 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
The examiner points out that Edwards’ figure 3 shows a nip
load of about 1.5 MPa for a 120 mm typical shoe, and figure 12
discloses cold Yankee cylinder solids for a 120 mm conventional
shoe (answer, page 5). Thus, the examiner argues, Edwards
discloses each element of the claimed invention (answer,
pages 5-6).
Edwards’ disclosure that the counter roll in a conventional
shoe press is small compared to a Yankee dryer (col. 5,
lines 58-60) indicates that the counter roll used with the
typical shoe in figure 3 is not a Yankee cylinder. The counter
roll used with the 120 mm conventional shoe in figure 12 is a
Yankee cylinder, but Edwards does not disclose the maximum
pressing pressure the combination is capable of providing.
Thus, to arrive at the claimed invention, one must pick, in
combination with the conventional 120 mm shoe, the nip load from
figure 3 and the Yankee cylinder from figure 12. For the
claimed invention to be anticipated, the reference must lead one
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007