Appeal No. 96-0274
Application No. 08/103,227
The 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). First, we agree with Appellants that Azar’s teachings
for a parallel-flow device do not suggest creating turbulence
in Nakajima’s radial-flow device. Second, we also agree with
appellants that Novotny’s teachings of fins 20 and heat sink
11 suggest nothing about placement of a turbulence-causing
member. Novotny does not employ turbulence. Thus, the
rejection will not be sustained.
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 1-20 are not sustained.
REVERSED
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007