Appeal No. 1999-0547 Page 3
Application No. 08/615,790
No. 26) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the
Corrected Brief (Paper No. 28) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The rejection is under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The guidance provided by our reviewing
court with regard to the matter of anticipation is that it is established only when a single
prior art reference discloses, either expressly or under the principles of inherency, each
and every element of the claimed invention. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31
USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d
1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990). For the reasons expressed below, we find this not to be the
case.
The appellant’s invention is directed to high-precision blending of solid particulate
matter in a blender operating under low flow rates. As explained on page 2 of the
specification, the prior art devices suffered from the problem of fluctuations in the flow rate
when the devices were operated at low flow rates, which the appellant discovered was
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007