Appeal 2007-0102
Application 10/338,988
after assembly. The very fact that Kawate is silent regarding these bending
step alternatives would have suggested to an artisan that either alternative
would be acceptable. We conclude, therefore, that it would have been
obvious for the artisan to bend Kawate’s projections before assembling (or
inserting) the heat transfer member (or lamella element) into the U-like
terminal plate (or radiator sheet).
Under the circumstances recounted above, it is our ultimate
determination that the reference evidence adduced by the Examiner
establishes a prima facie case of obviousness which the Appellant has failed
to successfully rebut with argument or evidence of nonobviousness. In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1444-45, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
We hereby sustain, therefore, the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of all the
appealed claims as being unpatentable over Kawate in view of Jackson or
Uchida.
The decision of the Examiner is 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)(1)(iv) (2006).
AFFIRMED
clj
Michael Best & Friedrich, LLP
100 E Wisconsin Ave.
Suite 3300
Milwaukee, WI 53202
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Last modified: September 9, 2013