Appeal No. 95-3119 Page 10
Application No. 08/089,810
apparatus. Furthermore, even if claims 19-21 did define only the
intended use of the apparatus, it is not apparent to us how that
would render the claims indefinite.
We agree with the appellant's argument (brief, p. 7) that
the lack of antecedent basis in claim 7 does not render the claim
indefinite. In that regard, we agree with the appellant that the
prior recitation in claim 7 of a fluidized bed combustor
necessity implies to the artisan that the combustor has a
combustion chamber. 5
The obviousness issues
We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1
through 7, 9 through 24 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a case of obviousness.
See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956
(Fed. Cir. 1993). A case of obviousness is established by
presenting evidence that the reference teachings would appear to
5For purposes of consistency with claim 6, we suggest that
the term "the combustion chamber" in claim 7 be changed to "a
combustion chamber."
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007