Appeal No. 2001-0370
Application No. 08/978,991
consideration. W.L. Gore & Assoc. V. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The initial
burden of establishing anticipation rests on the examiner. We
find that the examiner has failed to show that Duty teaches each
of the recited claim limitations with sufficient clarity and
detail to establish that the subject matter of appellants’
claimed invention existed in the prior art and was recognized by
persons of ordinary skill in the field of the invention. See In
re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir.
1990).
The examiner asserts that claims 1-8 and 10 are “clearly
anticipated Duty et al. (figs. 2, 8 and 11; column 6, lines
23-54; column 7, lines 37-51).” Examiner’s Answer, page 3. The
examiner specifically identifies figure 11 of Duty as disclosing
perforated deflector means having unobstructed perforations. See
id. The examiner fails to specifically identify any teaching in
Duty of the remaining claim limitations.
In any event, even if the examiner had properly identified
a teaching in Duty of the remaining claim elements, we could not
sustain the rejection since we do not concur with the examiner’s
interpretation of figure 11.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007