Appeal No. 1996-3909 Page 5
Application No. 08/115,440
process were made, the examiner has not convincingly
established that a process step of radiant cooling
corresponding to appellant’s claimed process step would
result.
It is manifest that the examiner must show that it would
have been obvious to combine the teachings of the applied
references so as to meet all of the limitations of the claimed
invention in order to establish the prima facie obviousness of
the claimed subject matter. As developed in appellant’s brief
(see, e.g., pages 11 and 14) however, the examiner has not
pointed out where any of the applied references teach or
suggest, alone or in combination, appellant’s radiant cooling
step. While
the examiner asserts that the cooling step of Sparks “would be
equivalent to a radiant cooling step” (answer, page 9), the
examiner has not adequately explained how this contention is
supported by the proffered teachings of Sparks. We observe
that appellant (brief, page 11) particularly notes the failure
of Sparks to teach radiant cooling.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007