Appeal 2006-2489
Application 09/900,771
II. DISCUSSION
A. The Issue
All of the rejections rely upon the combination of the teachings of
Long with those of Okamoto. The dispositive issue on appeal arises out of
Appellants’ contention that the Examiner has not provided a sufficient
reason, suggestion, or motivation within the prior art for combining the
teachings of those references (Br. 7). The Examiner contends that the
motivation to combine arises out of the teachings of Okamoto as well as the
knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art. The dispositive issue,
therefore, is: Has the Examiner provided a level of evidence sufficient to
support the finding of a reason, suggestion, or motivation to make the
required modification?
B. Facts
Long is directed to a radiator using a thermal control coating. The
radiator serves to transfer heat generated within the spacecraft to free space
and to reflect incident heat from solar radiation exposure (Long, col. 1, ll.
8-16). Long’s radiator 22 includes a radiator body 30 and a coating 44
(Long, col. 4, ll. 50-51). The radiator body 30 is a good thermal conductor
such as metal (Long, col. 8, ll. 6-8). The coating 44 is a white thermal
control paint (Long, col. 4, ll. 50-54) meant to reflect incident thermal
energy away from the spacecraft when the radiator is facing the sun (Long,
col. 6, ll. 35-37).
Okamoto describes a heat control device that not only radiates heat
but controls temperature by radiating different amounts of heat at different
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013