Appeal No. 96-3833
ApplicationApplication 08/014,320
substitute Kampe’s PTC heating element for VanSickle’s
thermostatically controlled heating element. Id.
We are not unmindful of appellant’s argument (see page 9 of
the brief) that Kampe teaches away from making the modification
needed to arrive at the claimed invention because Kampe discloses
an insulating layer 16 enveloping the electrodes and the PTC
material. This argument is also unpersuasive.
In the first place, claim 32 is not drafted in such a way
to exclude Kampe’s insulating layer 16 because it calls for the
heating element as “having” certain elements and therefore is
“open-ended” in the sense that the heating element may include
other elements not recited in the claim. Furthermore, contrary
to the apparent implication of appellant’s argument, Kampe’s
layer or sleeve 16 appears to be electrical insulation, not
thermal insulation inasmuch as enveloping the heater in thermal
insulation would be counterproductive to the basic purpose of the
heater, namely the supply heat to the surroundings.
In any case, one skilled in the art is not compelled to
blindly adopt every aspect of the prior art teachings without the
exercise of independent judgment. See Lear Siegler, Inc. v.
Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889, 221 USPQ 1025, 1032 (Fed. Cir.
-11-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007