Appeal No. 97-2642 Page 22
Application No. 08/094,461
through 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24 and 30 through 32 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
On pages 33-34 and 42 of the brief, the appellant argues
that the plurality of flexible hoses bridging a flexible
portion of the screed recited in claims 12 and 34 is not
suggested by the applied prior art. We agree. The examiner's
conclusion of obviousness (answer, pp. 7, 16 and 19) has no
factual support. On page 41 of the brief, the appellant
argues that the single serpentine heat exchanger having a
plurality of rigid channels mounted on opposed sides of the
screed recited in claim 33 is not suggested by the applied
prior art. We agree. The examiner's conclusion of
obviousness (answer, p. 19) has no factual support.
The conclusion that the claimed subject matter is obvious
must be supported by evidence, as shown by some objective
teaching in the prior art or by knowledge generally available
to one of ordinary skill in the art that would have led that
individual to combine the relevant teachings of the references
to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007