Appeal No. 2003-0764
Application No. 09/660,797
The examiner has also not pointed to any admitted prior art as
found in appellants’ specification to support his finding that
“different cooling rates are employed for the different sections”
(Answer, page 3), assuming that these “sections” are equivalent to
the cross-sectional “section parts” of the claimed subject matter.
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the Brief, we
determine that the examiner has not set forth sufficient factual
support to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967)(where
the legal conclusion of obviousness is not supported by facts it
cannot stand). Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s rejection of
the claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the admitted
prior art as found on pages 2-7 of appellants’ specification in
view of Ackert.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007