Appeal 2007-1801
Application 10/156,917
The references relied on by the Examiner are:
Heere US 2,903,401 Sep. 8, 1959
Small US 4,413,394 Nov. 8, 1983
Gentry US 4,709,755 Dec. 1, 1987
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 14-21 and 45-50 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Heere in view of Gentry and Small.
ISSUE
The Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to have
modified the reflux condenser of Heere in view of Gentry and/or Small to
achieve the invention as claimed. Appellants contend that one of ordinary
skill in the art would not have looked to Gentry and Small because they
relate to heat exchangers which operate in a different manner than Heere’s
reflux condenser and, therefore, the Examiner’s motivation to combine the
references can only be based on improper hindsight reasoning. The issue for
us to decide is: Has the Examiner properly established motivation to
combine the references within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103?
For the reasons discussed below, we answer this question in the
affirmative.
RELEVANT FINDINGS OF FACT
1) Heere discloses an apparatus which includes a reflux condenser in
which vapor is condensed and returns by gravity as liquid. The
condensed liquid is diverted by baffle and drip lip to a collection pocket.
Col. 2, ll. 12-21.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013