Court Opinion

ID: 9456397
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:51:12.603053+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:57.462205
License: Public Domain

BALDWIN, Judge
(dissenting).
The question of fact upon which the decision below was based was whether Riber’s element D functions as a baffle. The Board of Appeals asserted that it did and appeared to base its conclusion as well as the conclusion that it would be obvious to employ a baffle in the Parsons’s system on “the application of known principles of fluid flow.” Now, without any more basis than the mere allegations of counsel, the majority has concluded that the allegation of fact made by the board was in error and for this reason alone, has reversed the board’s decision.
I agree with the Patent Office that known principles of fluid flow mechanics would render obvious the use of a baffle in the Parsons’s system (which is all appellant has done) and I would affirm on this ground. I also feel, however, that the majority has erred in law by not accepting a finding of fact made by the board and by treating statements of counsel as proof.