Appeal No. 96-3741
Application No. 08/177,288
and thus would not have suggested the packed column/wick
feature of claim 7 or the first and second heat exchangers
feature of claim 9. In essence, the examiner’s obviousness
conclusions with the respect to these claims lack the
evidentiary support required to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness.
As a final matter of concern, we observe that the first
and final Office actions of record in this application have
been disassembled and then misplaced or reassembled in an
inappropriate manner. Upon return of this application to the
jurisdiction of the Examining Corps, these Office actions
should be reconstructed so as to restore the filed record to
its proper official condition.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007