Appeal No. 97-3006
Application 08/571,032
condenser involves changes of refrigerant flow path direction
(i.e., turns) while Guntly’s condenser does not. Given the
complexity of condenser tube design, the disparate natures of
the Hoshino and Guntly condensers and the failure of either
reference to recognize the relationship between condensation
distance and equivalent diameter appreciated by the appellants
and set forth in claim 1, we are led to conclude that the only
suggestion for combining Hoshino and Guntly in the manner
proposed by the examiner stems from hindsight knowledge
impermissibly derived from the appellants’ own teachings. In
other words, the examiner’s reference evidence fails to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
the subject matter recited in claim 1 and in claim 3 which
depends therefrom. Therefore, we shall not sustain the2
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of these claims.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
2This being so, we find it unnecessary to delve into the
merits of the appellants’ 37 CFR § 1.132 declaration evidence
of non-obviousness.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007