Appeal No. 2003-0229
Application No. 09/768,885
571 (CCPA 1982); In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1089, 197 USPQ 601,
607 (CCPA 1978).
Relying on Pfenninger’s Figure 2 and Bloomer’s Figure 1,
the appellants contend: “[I]t is the non-stitched pattern which
appears to ‘facilitate the use of larger quantity of heating
wire per unit area.’” (Appeal brief, page 8.) This argument is
unpersuasive. The issue here is “not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference” but rather “what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Here, neither of the two prior art drawings is prepared “to
scale.” 37 CFR § 1.84 (2003) (effective Nov. 29, 2000).
Moreover, it would not be surprising that Pfenninger’s
resistance wires could be denser than those of Bloomer because
Pfenninger, like Bloomer, teaches “stitching” the resistance
wire 13. Also, we agree with the examiner’s scientific
reasoning (answer, page 5) that “[s]titching a heater pattern
involves not only configuring the heater wire in the plane of
the underlying substrate, but also transverse to the plane of
the underlying substrate,” as illustrated in Bloomer’s Figure 2.
While the appellants argue that “[h]eating spaces vertically
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007