Appeal No. 1999-1052 Page 6
Application No. 08/604,841
skill in the art would have been led to modify a prior art reference or to combine reference
teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. See Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972, 973
(Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985). To this end, the requisite motivation must stem from some
teaching, suggestion or inference in the prior art as a whole or from the knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art and not from the appellant's disclosure.
See, for example, Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp.,
837 F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1439 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825
(1988).
Claims 6-8, 13 and 14 stand rejected as being unpatentable over Frankeny in view
of Butt, the latter being cited for its teaching of a plurality of internal fin assemblies for
uniformly distributing the coolant flow in a fluid cooled heat exchanger for cooling electronic
components. Be that as it may, and considering Frankeny in the light of Section 103, Butt
fails to alleviate the shortcomings in Frankeny that were pointed out above with regard to
the rejection of claim 1 et al. under Section 102. Thus, the combined teachings of
Frankeny and Butt fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the
subject matter of claims 6-8, 13 and 14, all of which depend from claim 1, and we will not
sustain this rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007