Appeal No. 1997-4385
Application No. 08/288,864
vortex stabilizer 21 is significantly less than that of the
wall 9, the
element 21 of Dewitz will permit solids to bounce off wall 9.
While there is no explicit statement in Dewitz that the
disclosed vortex stabilizer 21 prevents separated particles
from
bouncing off the wall 9, it is self-evident that separated
particles are prevented from contacting that portion of wall 9
covered by the vortex stabilizer 21. That is all the claim
requires (see our interpretation of the word “preventing”
above).
After the PTO establishes a prima facie case of
anticipation based on inherency, the burden shifts to the
appellant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the
prior art does not possess the characteristics of the claimed
invention. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964,
966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327, 231
USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Hence, the appellant’s burden
before the PTO is to prove that Dewitz’s vortex stabilizer
does not perform the function defined by the solids deflector
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007