Appeal No. 1999-1083 Page 2
Application No. 08/759,394
BACKGROUND
By decision of November 30, 2000, this panel of the Board reversed the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-3, 8 and 11, entered a new rejection under 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
rejecting claims 1 and 8, and remanded the case to the examiner for the purpose of
considering whether the new rejection might apply to the remaining claims in the
1
application. In the new rejection under 37 CFR § 1.196(b), the Board rejected
independent apparatus claim 1 and independent method claim 8 on the basis that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the air conditioning system of
Des Champs by replacing heat transfer unit 7 with the refrigerant sub-cooler assembly
shown in Figure 2 of Bussjager. In their request for rehearing, the appellants argue that to
do so would result in the operation of Des Champs’ other heat exchanger being
“substantially impaired,” and thus such a modification would not have been obvious. The
appellants also urge that even if the modification were made, it would not result in the
applicants’ invention.
OPINION
We shall stand by the explanation we offered in our decision on the merits, and the
conclusion we expressed there, and shall confine our comments here to the specific
matters raised by the appellants in the request for rehearing. In this regard, and
1Remand to the examiner necessarily would be held in abeyance pending a request
for rehearing of the Board’s decision by the appellants under 37 CFR § 197.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007