Ex Parte Low et al - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2004-0536                                                        
          Application No. 09/823,072                                                  


               The examiner relies upon the following references as                   
          evidence of obviousness:                                                    
          York                           5,823,477            Oct. 20, 1998           
          Basuthakur et al.              6,003,817            Dec. 21, 1999           
          (Basuthakur)                                                                
          Hosick                         6,073,887            Jun. 13, 2000           
          Doll                           2,463,058            Mar. 27, 1981           
          (French Patent)                                                             
          Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a spacecraft                   
          having east and west facing body panels which, because of                   
          exposure to the sun, become excessively hot.  In order to cool              
          the east or west panel facing the sun, one or more heat pipes are           
          used to thermally interconnect the east and west facing panels.             
          In addition, heat dissipating equipment is mounted on the heat              
          pipes.                                                                      
               Appealed claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as            
          being unpatentable over Basuthakur or Hosick in view of York or             
          Doll.                                                                       
               Appellants submit at page 4 of the principal brief that "it            
          is respectfully submitted that Claims 1-6 stand or fall                     
          together."  Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand or fall              
          together with claim 1.                                                      
               We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments              
          for patentability.  However, we are in complete agreement with              


                                         -2-                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007