Appeal No. 2000-0185
Application 08/847,111
F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). The
law followed by our Court of review, and thus by this Board,
is that "[a] prima facie case of obviousness is established
when the teachings from the prior art itself would appear to
have suggested the claimed subject matter to a person of
ordinary skill in the art." In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048,
1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). See also In re Lalu, 747
F.2d 703, 705, 223 USPQ 1257, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 1984) "In
determining whether a case of prima facie obviousness exists,
it is necessary to
ascertain whether the prior art teachings would appear to be
sufficient to one of ordinary skill in the art to suggest
making the claimed substitution or other modification.”
Looking at the Iwasaki patent, it is apparent that it
discloses a heat exchanger assembly including a housing (42)
and a heat exchanger core assembly (43, 44) disposed in the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007