Appeal No. 2000-1638
Application No. 08/829,699
al. for improved performance [first Office action,
pages 3-4].
Appellant points out on page 3 of the brief that the
stated purpose of Yamamoto's invention is to strengthen
surface tension on the inner face of the tube to prevent
coolant held inside the grooves from escaping from the inner
walls and argues that cross-cutting (notching) the grooves as
taught by Asaumi would necessarily attenuate the desired
surface tension of the grooves and radically alter the desired
flow pattern. According to appellant, the modification
proposed by the examiner would result in a device which would
not act as Yamamoto intended. Thus, appellant urges that the
examiner's rejection is grounded in "an impermissible exercise
of hindsight." After carefully reviewing the combined
teachings of Yamamoto and Asaumi, we find ourselves in6
agreement with appellant.
The examiner asserts, in essence, that a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellant's invention
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the6
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).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007