Appeal No. 97-4249
Application No. 08/249,400
See Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972, 973 (BPAI 1985). To this
end, the requisite motivation must stem from some teaching,
suggestion or inference in the prior art as a whole or from the
knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the
art and not from the appellant's disclosure. See, for example,
Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1052, 5
USPQ2d 1434, 1052 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825
(1988).
The appellant's invention is directed to heat storage and
exchange systems that can be used in buildings. Basically
speaking, these systems comprise a heat exchange medium through
which flow the fluids of two interrelated circulating systems.
One system removes heat from the medium through a first heat
exchanger located therein, causing the medium to become cooler.
The other system adds heat to the medium by means of a second
heat exchanger located in the medium. A primary feature of the
appellant's inventive improvements to such systems is the
"interweaving" of the conduits of the first heat exchanger with
the conduits of the second heat exchanger. This feature also
is set forth in the claims and, as will be explained below, is
a key factor in our analysis of the examiner's rejections. At
this point, therefore, it is necessary for us to interpret the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007