Appeal No. 1997-3678
Application No. 08/485,161
of trend of less than 2°C and without a temperature overshoot
on the initial ascent.6
As the answer readily reveals (pages 5 through 15), the
examiner has in detail carefully assessed the features of
independent method claim 1 relative to the respective
teachings of Reeber, Chu, the Marto and Lepere article, and
the Hesketh dissertation. Like the examiner, we appreciate
the relevance of particular teachings of the evidence of
obviousness, as well as deficiencies therein with respect to
the overall method of claim 1; more specifically, the
deficiency that concerns the recitation in step (c) of claim 1
requiring a reversal of trend of less than 2°C (answer, pages
7 through 10). As candidly acknowledged by the examiner
(answer, page 8), “clause (c) of claim 1 represents one of the
most troubling aspects of the case.” The examiner also brings
to our attention (answer, page 8) that claim 1 has evolved to
its present form during its prosecution history. We find that
6As argued (brief, page 11), appellant understands the
claimed subject matter to recite flooding of nucleation sites
with the refrigerant prior to heating the surface to a
preselected boiling point of the refrigerant.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007