Appeal No. 2003-0217
Application No. 09/284,076
skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to use the
Javali [sic] apparatus at an overpressure of 0.5 bar in view of
the Muenger teaching in order to: 1) increase the heat transfer
from the combustor to steam 2 [sic]; [and] 2) eliminate the
stack exhaust fan and save its cost,” the examiner has not
identified any evidence that would substantiate this argument.
Accordingly, we hold that the examiner has not carried the
burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness as to
appealed claims 10 through 14.
Summary
In summary, we affirm the examiner’s rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) of appealed claim 15 as anticipated by Javeri.
We reverse, however, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of
appealed claims 10 through 14 as unpatentable over Javeri in
view of Muenger.
The decision of the examiner is therefore affirmed in part.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007