Appeal No. 1998-0453
Application No. 08/381,306
invention." RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems. Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444,
221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
It is well settled that the burden of establishing a prima facie case 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). 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,
appellants’ burden before the PTO is to prove that the applied prior art reference does not
perform the functions defined in the claims. The appellants have not come forward with
any evidence to satisfy that burden. Compare In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195
USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664, 169 USPQ 563,
566-67 (CCPA 1971).
BRUE
Appellants argue that the structure shown in Figures 3 and 4 of Brue is a ring with
indentations and pads but does not disclose a “an annular groove” in only an outer
circumference of said uppermost spacer and an outer circumference said lowermost
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007