Appeal No. 2000-0606
Application No. 08/755,435
Turning next to the limitation that the slot portion have
a relatively narrow width that prevents more than a few
interfolded napkins from being pulled through the throat at
one time, appellants' specification does not define what is
meant by "a few." Further, appellants' claims do not specify4
any particular material properties, dimensions or thickness
for the napkins. Given the breadth of this claim terminology,
the slot portion of Downham's cut out 21 appears to us to be
fully capable of preventing more than a few interfolded
napkins from being pulled through the cut out at one time,
especially if those napkins are relatively thick in relation
to the slot portion width.
After the PTO establishes a prima facie case of
anticipation based on inherency, the burden shifts to
appellants 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). In this instance, appellants
4Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition (Simon &
Schuster, Inc. 1988) defines "few" as "not many; a small number."
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007