Appeal 2006-2293
Application 10/471,932
THE ISSUES
Appellant's independent claims 28 and 45 both recite a thickness of
the coating metal layer being "no greater than 5μm" and "a heat capacity of
said coating metal layer being smaller than a heat capacity of said main
body." Appellant argues that Kent does not teach or suggest a heat capacity
of a coating metal layer smaller than a heat capacity of a main body and, in
fact, does not even discuss the relative heat capacities of the main body and
coating metal layer (App. Br. 4). Appellant further argues that heat capacity
is a physical characteristic of a component determined by the volume,
density and specific heat of a component, not simply by the material of the
component, and that, accordingly, simply stating that a particular reference
teaches the material of one of the two components is not sufficient to also
teach a recited heat capacity relationship between the two components (App.
Br. 5). Additionally, Appellant argues that minimizing or reducing the
thickness of Kent's zinc coating as proposed by the Examiner would be
contrary to the objectives of the Kent reference and would render it
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and, therefore, such modification
would not have been obvious (App. Br. 6). Accordingly, at issue in this
appeal is whether it would have been obvious, in view of Siak, to modify
Kent to provide a zinc coating thickness no greater than 5 microns (µm) and,
if so, whether the applied references establish that the heat capacity of such
coating would be less than that of the fin main body of Kent.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the examiner bears the
initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013