Appeal No. 2004-1456 Page 11
Application No. 09/624,151
surface other than the north or south face, or that the temperature of the fluid medium is
raised above that of a solar loaded surface. Like appellants, Scaringe (column 2, lines
15-17) recognizes that the use of heat pumps in heat dissipation systems in spacecraft
can improve the heat rejection capability of a spacecraft by permitting the heat-rejection
temperature to be raised, which makes the radiator more efficient. Unlike appellants,
however, Scaringe, does not disclose raising the heat-rejection temperature to a
temperature above that of a solar loaded surface to permit such to be effectively used
as a radiating surface.
For the foregoing reasons, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 24, or claims
25, 28, 30, 31, 36 and 37 depending therefrom, as being anticipated1 by Scaringe.
Finding nothing in the additional teachings of Homer and Camaret relied upon in
rejecting the remaining dependent claims which overcomes the above-noted deficiency
of Scaringe, we also cannot sustain the rejections of claims 27, 32 and 33 as being
unpatentable over Scaringe in view of Homer and claims 29, 34 and 35 as being
unpatentable over Scaringe in view of Camaret.
CONCLUSION
1 Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under
the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital
Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In other words, there must be
no difference between the claimed invention and the reference disclosure, as viewed by a person of
ordinary skill in the field of the invention. Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d
1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007