Appeal 2007-0403
Application 10/440,859
skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom...”). The
analysis supporting obviousness, however, should be made explicit and
should “identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary
skill in the art to combine the elements” in the manner claimed. KSR, 127
S.Ct. at 1731, 81 USPQ2d at 1389.
VI. ANALYSIS, FACTS, AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
As evidence of obviousness of the claimed subject matter under § 103,
the Examiner has primarily relied on the disclosures of Bostic, Choy, and
Purdum (Answer 3-5). The Examiner has correctly found at page 3 of the
Answer that Bostic teaches a modular freezer pallet comprising a heat sink
material (a phase change material) for maintaining desired cooling in the
interior chamber and a layer of insulation between the heat sink material and
the outer wall. (See also Bostic, col. 2, ll. 39-52, and col. 4, ll. 28-51). The
Examiner has recognized that Bostic does not teach employing another
phase change material having a different melting point and another
insulation layer as required by independent claims 11 and 12 (Answer 3-4).
To remedy these deficiencies, the Examiner has referred to the
disclosures of Choy and Purdum (id). The Examiner has found that “Choy
teaches that in order to achieve further and better insulation, another series
of insulators can be additionally nested within each other” and Purdum
teaches a plurality of reservoirs having different phase change materials in
direct contact with the interior chamber of a shipping container (id). It
appears to be the Examiner’s position that these findings would have led one
of ordinary skill in the art to place sequentially an additional phase change
material (having a melting point different than that of the first phase change
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013