Appeal 2006-2311
Application 10/676,593
focus on the functional language “configured for communicating with
methane in the landfill” and argues that the claim phrase indicates that “the
flanges of the pipe [sic fan] module must have a structural quality that is
defined in terms of what the structural quality must accomplish [i.e., its
function], namely, mating with a specific structure –landfill well flanges”
(Br. 3). However, the absence of disclosure relating to function does not
defeat a finding of anticipation. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478-79,
44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Furthermore, because Adkins, II’s solar-powered exhaust fan is
structurally identical to Appellants’ claimed solar-powered fan, we
determine that Adkins, II’s fan is inherently capable of attachment to a
landfill well to aid in methane removal. Id. Appellants bear the burden of
demonstrating that Adkins, II’s solar-powered exhaust fan is not inherently
capable of performing the claimed function (i.e., attachment to a landfill
well). Id.
In an attempt to satisfy their burden, Appellants argue that their
flanges have a “structural quality,” namely, “mating with a specific structure
– landfill well flanges,” that is implied by their recited function (Br. 3).
However, Appellants are required to show that “the prior art structure [i.e.,
Adkins, II’s solar powered exhaust fan] . . . [does] not inherently possess the
functionally defined limitations of . . . [the] claimed apparatus.” Schreiber,
128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. Appellants have not made this
showing. As such, Appellants have not satisfied this burden.
Because we find that Adkins, II discloses both of Appellants’ argued
distinctions, with Adkins, II’s disclosure of the non-argued claim features
not being in dispute, we find claim 1 to be anticipated. Accordingly, we
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013