Appeal No. 2003-1788
Application No. 09/403,081
I. The Anticipation Rejection
We note that the initial burden of presenting a prima facie
case of unpatentability on any ground rests with the examiner.
See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992). To meet this burden, with regard to an
anticipation rejection, the examiner must establish that a single
prior art reference discloses each and every material element of
the claim. In re Marshall, 578 F.2d 301, 304, 198 USPQ 344, 346
(CCPA 1978).
Critical to the anticipation issue in this appeal is the
definition of “burner”. The examiner states: “[n]o distinction
is seen or has been shown in the manner in which the appellants
add supplemental oxygen . . . into their region 8 . . . as
compared to the manner in which Gitman adds supplemental air . .
. into their region 102.” Answer, page 8.
On the other hand, appellants state: “[t]he region 102
illustrated in Fig. 2 of Gitman and the region 8 illustrated in
Figs. 1-3 of the present application have clearly different
functions. Region 8 . . . is a combustion reactor (reaction
chamber). The combustion reactor permits the chemical components
to react with each other as completely as possible.” Brief, page
7.
We find that Gitman introduces oxygen to preliminary burner
17 and to chambers 101 and 102, which are depicted as part of
burner means 16, in Figure 2 of Gitman. It is reaction chamber 3
that is separate, downstream, and apart from burner means 16.
See Figure 2 of Gitman.
We also find in Gitman that feed gas can be introduced into
both the preliminary burner 17 (via line 5), and the chamber 102,
(via line 108), of Gitman. See Figure 2 and page 22, lines 20-22
of Gitman.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007