Appeal No. 95-3362
Application 08/009,200
teach a detecting means, controlling means comprising a storing
means and a calculating means to provide a feed-forward control
of the heat load as recited in Appellant’s claims 1 and 5.
The Examiner argues on page 4 of the answer that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to power
the load from the auxiliary generator rather than the public
utility. Appellant responds in the reply brief that Aasen does
not suggest powering the auxiliary heat unit 20 with the
generator 12 nor does Aasen suggest linking the generator 12 and
the auxiliary heater 20 and controlling the same such that the
electrical and heat loads would be balanced with the system,
thereby eliminating the need for the hook-up to power grid as
taught by Aasen.
The Federal Circuit states that "[t]he mere fact that the
prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner
does not make the modification obvious unless the prior art
suggested the desirability of the modification." In re Fritch,
972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir.
1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125,
1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). "Obviousness may not be established using
hindsight or in view of the teachings or suggestions of the
inventor." Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d at
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007