Appeal No. 1997-4385
Application No. 08/288,864
vortex stabilizer improves the separation efficiency of the
solid and fluid phases (see col. 10, ll. 47-52), which is one
of the objects of the appellant’s invention.
Without question, the vortex stabilizer 21 disclosed by
Dewitz will prevent particles from bouncing off the wall 9 at
least at that portion of wall 9 which is occupied or covered
by the vortex stabilizer 21, just as the appellant’s deflector
will prevent particles from bouncing off the wall 18 at that
portion of the wall covered by the deflector. Thus, we
conclude that the examiner has established a prima facie case
of anticipation.2
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 3-5) that Dewitz teaches
that the purpose of the vortex stabilizer 21 is “. . . to
guarantee formation and existence of a helical flow of fluid
(vapor) material” (see Dewitz, col. 7, ll. 14-16) and that the
vortex stabilizer 21 of Dewitz is not capable of preventing
the separated particles from bouncing off the wall 9.
According to the appellant, because the outer diameter of the
It is well settled that the burden of establishing a prima facie case2
of anticipation resides with the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). See In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007