Appeal 2007-2201
Application 10/613,735
The initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of lack of written
description rests with the Examiner. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445,
24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). However, the initial burden is
discharged by the Examiner if the Examiner establishes the fact that
Appellant is claiming embodiments completely outside the scope of the
Specification. See In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 1175, 37 USPQ2d 1578, 1583
(Fed. Cir. 1996). We determine that the Examiner has established the fact
that the “evaporator operates as a heat plate” is an embodiment completely
outside the scope of the original Specification. We determine that Appellant
has not established, by argument or evidence, that a “heat plate” is any
heated surface, or that a “heat plate” is a particular subgenus of heat
exchanger. Therefore, we affirm the rejection based on § 112, first
paragraph.
B. The Rejection based on § 102(b)
We determine the following Factual Findings from the record in this
appeal:
(1) Wedler discloses a process and apparatus for removing
water and/or solvents from a textile material, including the
steps of forming a chemical mixture comprising a non-
aqueous solvent and a chemical solute, applying the mixture
to the textile substrate, and removing the non-aqueous
solvent from the wet substrate (Answer 5; see Wedler,
Abstract);
(2) Wedler discloses removing a portion of the chemical
mixture from the wet substrate, providing a vacuum to
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013