Appeal No. 1999-1463
Application 08/467,052
that this rejection is of claim 2 and not of claim 3. This second rejection is inherently flawed
as well. Since the examiner has taken the approach that Kluitmans and Herbst must be
utilized to reject independent claim 1 on appeal in the first stated rejection, any claim
depending therefrom, such as claim 2, must utilize as a basis both references to Kluitmans
and Herbst, in addition to Greve from which obviousness may be properly determined with
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the examiner, reference is
made to the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse both rejections.
If we assume for the sake of argument that Kluitmans and Herbst are properly
combined within 35 U.S.C. § 103 to reach independent claim 1 on appeal and that their
teachings and suggestions are taken most favorably to the examiner, the subject matter of
independent claim 1 on appeal would not have been met by the overall combination
anyway. We agree with the examiner’s view that the cooling plate CP in the various figures
would have provided the raised portion mounting region for the Peltier effect element TEC
in the various figures of Kluitmans. We also would agree with the examiner’s view that the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007