Appeal No. 2006-1799
Application No. 10/269,955
come only from Appellants’ own disclosure and not from any teaching or suggestion in
the Jacobsen reference. The mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the manner
suggested by the Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the prior art
suggested the desirability of the modification. In re Fritch, 972 F. 2d 1260, 1266, 23
USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In view of the above discussion, since the Examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness, the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 21
and 29, as well as claims 22, 23, 30, and 31 dependent thereon, based on the
Jacobsen reference, is not sustained.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent
claims 24-28 and 32-34 in which the Martins, Sheerin, and Kleinhans references are
combined with Jacobsen to address, respectively, the coolant tube plates, cooling fins,
and plural blower features of these dependent claims. We find nothing in the Martins,
Sheerin, or Kleinhans references, taken collectively or individually, that would overcome
the innate deficiencies of Jacobsen discussed, supra.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007