Appeal No. 2006-2161
Application No. 10/248,326
the combined teachings of Lake and Kothmann. Answer at 4,
first ¶. When rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the
examiner bears the initial burden to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness. In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532,
28 U.S.P.Q.2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). If and when the
examiner establishes a prima facie case of obviousness, the
burden shifts to appellant to present evidence to the
contrary. Id.
Claim 1 is directed to battery systems for use in
electric powered automotive vehicles. Each battery system
minimally includes a battery case, a plurality of battery
cells housed within said case, a plurality of heat transfer
passages extending about said battery cells, a supply of
heat transfer working fluid, a working fluid driver for
circulating said heat transfer working fluid from said
supply and through said heat transfer coolant passages, and
a controller for operating said working fluid driver so as
to periodically reverse the direction of the flow of heat
transfer working fluid through said heat transfer passages.
“[I]n proceedings before the PTO, claims in an
application are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re
Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1983). Here, the supporting specification teaches that the
purpose of periodically reversing the direction of the flow
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007