Appeal No. 2006-0601
Application No. 10/430,030
fluidized bed combustor 20 to gasifier 22. Similarly, the
appellant argues that Sacks discloses transferring heat via heat-
transfer particles, but not exhaust, from combustor 11 to
gasifier 12.
It is true that neither of the applied references expressly
discloses transferring exhaust from the combustor to the
gasifier. However, the absence of express disclosure does not
forestall a finding of anticipation. This is because a reference
will still anticipate if the disclosure of the claim limitation
in question is inherent (as opposed to explicit). See In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir.
1997). Also see W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), (cert. denied),
469 U.S. 851 (1984)); In re In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959, 177
USPQ 705, 706 (CCPA 1973); In re Glass, 474 F.2d 1015, 1019, 176
USPQ 529, 532 (CCPA 1973).
In our view, the Horgan apparatus and the Sacks apparatus
would inherently and necessarily transfer at least some exhaust
from the combustor to the gasifier at least at some point during
operation thereof. With regard to this matter, Horgan
unambiguously teaches that “heat in the high temperature gas [of
combustor 20] is transferred via the conduit 48 to the partial
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007