Appeal No. 1998-1711 Page 13
Application No. 08/506,387
translation, also contemplates an alternative option of the second embodiment wherein an intermediate
space is formed between the walls of the reservoir and the expansion tank for receipt of a heat
conductor, such as a metal sleeve, for winter operation. Penkwitz discloses a third embodiment,
illustrated in Figure 3, wherein the reservoir and tank are disposed next to one another separated by a
space 14 adapted to be filled with a fluid 16, such as water, having good thermal conductivity. For
summer operation, the water or other thermally conductive fluid can be drained from the space via an
outlet 25. In the alternative, as shown in Figure 4, an intermediate space 15 may be provided for
receiving an insertable intermediate layer 17. An intermediate layer having good thermal conductivity,
such as a metal plate, is inserted in the space 15 for winter operation and may be removed or, if
required, replaced with an insulating plate for summer operation (translation, page 7).
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,
881 (CCPA 1981). Indeed, a prima facie case of obviousness is established where the
reference teachings would appear to be sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the art having
those teachings before him to make the proposed combination or modification. See In re
Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972). Moreover, in evaluating
such references it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the references
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007