Appeal No. 1999-1763
Application No. 08/834,931
reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760,
772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465
U.S. 1026 (1984). It is well settled that if a prior art
device inherently possesses the capability of functioning in
the manner claimed, anticipation exists regardless of whether
there was a recognition that it could be used to perform the
claimed function. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477,
44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Price’s device
shows the claimed features of a thin layer of biomass and a
worm mass within the thin layer of biomass (see Abstract,
first sentence and page 2, lines 43-47); an input end
(adjacent hopper 14) and output end (near 22); and a conveyor
means (12) which carries the thin layer of biomass. By virtue
of the presence of the worms in the biomass, some digestion of
the biomass by the worms, albeit in a limited amount,
inherently will occur in the device of Price during the
movement of the biomass from the input end of the conveyor to
the output end thereof. Moreover, as result of such activity
by the worms, there will also be, to some extent, a reduction
in the stratification of the worms in the thin layer of
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007