Appeal No. 97-2418 Page 9
Application No. 08/390,843
teachings of the applied prior art. See Ex parte Levy, 17
USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Patent App. & Int. 1990). In this
case, Bachmann clearly describes a gas flow diverter having
all the structural features recited in claim 1 (e.g., a flow
line having a junction inlet and two junction outlets, a flow
diverting means, and means for controlling movement of the
flow diverting means). Bachmann's gas flow diverter is
designed to transport a large volume of hot exhaust gas from a
gas turbine 11 to either a heat recovery steam generator 12 or
a stack 13 (see Figure 1 and column 3, lines 33-38). Thus, it
is our opinion that it would have been reasonable to assume
that Bachmann's gas flow diverter is capable of distributing
two phase mixed steam flow. While of course there is no
teaching in Bachmann of using the gas flow diverter in this
manner, it is well settled that if a prior art device
inherently possesses the capability of functioning in the
manner claimed, anticipation exists whether there was a
recognition that it could be used to perform the claimed
function. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007