Appeal 2006-3385
Application 10/407,401
whole, the law does not require that the references be combined for the
reasons contemplated by the inventor."). While Appellants suggest that one
of ordinary skill in the art would actually be dissuaded from using air
blowers in fuel cell systems (see Br. 17), they have not offered the requisite
evidentiary support to demonstrate a teaching away. Appellants’ attempt to
overcome the § 103 rejections by asserting that the processes of Allen and
JP ‘765/Clawson are not physically combinable is likewise unpersuasive
since a prima facie showing of obviousness is based on what the combined
teachings of the references would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The rejection of claims 40, 41, 45 and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Allen as applied to claims 36 and 43 and further in view
of JP ’365 and the rejection of claims 44, 47, 48 and 52 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Allen as applied to claims 36 and 43 and further
in view of Clawson are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(iv).
AFFIRMED
LMG/cam
Chevron Services Company
Law, Intellectual Property Group
P. O. Box 4368
Houston, TX 77210-4368
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Last modified: September 9, 2013