Appeal No. 95-1641
Application No. 07/825,927
With respect to claim 8, we agree with the examiner that
the determination of workable or even optimum heat transfer
surface area would have been obvious to an artisan with
ordinary skill since the amount of heat transfer is known to
be affected by the size of a heat transfer area (Q=(A)(Cp)(T2-
T1)). Woodruff, 919 F.2d at 1578, 16 USPQ2d at 1936-37;
Boesch, 617 F.2d at 276, 205 USPQ at 219. We find that the
size of a heat transfer area is a known result effective
variable. Note also Witte, column 1, lines 29-52.
Appellants argue that the claimed process imparts
surprising and unexpected results, i.e., larger crystal sizes,
faster cooling rates, larger productivity and more
reliability, thus rebutting the prima facie case of
obviousness established by the examiner. See Brief, pages 9-
14. Having carefully reviewed the examples in the
specification and the examples in the Yamauchi reference, we
are not convinced that appellants have met their burden of
demonstrating unexpected results. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d
1465, 1469-70, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re
Heyna, 360 F.2d 222, 228, 149 USPQ 692, 697 (CCPA 1966).
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007