Appeal 2007-0403
Application 10/440,859
material) and an additional insulation layer over Bostic’s phase change
material and insulation layer (Answer 3-5). The Appellant does not agree
with this position (Br. 3-5).
The dispositive question is, therefore, whether the Examiner has
demonstrated that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been
led to place the above additional phase change material between two
insulation layers of a shipping container or a freezer pallet within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. On this record, we answer this question in the
negative.
As indicated supra, both Bostic and Purdum employ their phase
change materials (cooling medium) directly in contact with the interior
chamber of a freezer pallet or a shipping container to maintain desired
cooling temperatures or conditions therein. As also indicated supra, Choy
repeats only insulation layers (not cooling and insulation layers) to improve
insulation. From these facts, there is no apparent reason to provide any
phase change material (cooling medium), much less a phase change material
having a different melting point, between two insulation layers. To do so
would run counter to common sense of a person of ordinary skill in the art
and the purpose of using the phase change material since the insulation
layers would prevent the phase change material from performing its desired
cooling function. Thus, contrary to the Examiner’s contentions at page 4 of
the Answer, we determine that a person having ordinary skill in the relevant
art would not have been led to the claimed subject matter within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013