Appeal No. 2004-0804
Application No. 09/757,886
including the contested limitation. While the examiner argues
that “[t]he drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably
disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art,” there
is no explanation on how and why the downcomers depicted in
Figures 1 and 2 of the reference would necessarily satisfy the
contested limitation.
Because the examiner has not established a prima facie case
of anticipation within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102, we cannot
affirm.
III. Claims 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over EP ’262
Appealed claim 3 recites that “the cross-sectional area at
the lower end of the downcomer is between about 10 and 30% of
the cross-sectional area of the upper end of the downcomer at
tray level.” EP ’262 does not describe the relationship between
the cross-sectional area of the lower end and the upper end of
the downcomer at tray level.
EP ’262 teaches, however, that the downcomers “pass through
the tray to a predetermined height above the upper surface of
said tray and a predetermined distance below the lower surface
of said tray” and that the downcomers “have a configuration
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007