Appeal No. 2000-0946 Page 7
Application No. 08/704,217
also In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982); In re
Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974). Thus, the
examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1, as well as claims 2-4 which are grouped
therewith, as being unpatentable over Tamura is sustained.
Turning now to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4 as being unpatentable over
Oishi, we note that Oishi measures the current flowing through a defrosting heater 20
and calculates the gradient or rate of decrease of the current to determine the point A,
as shown in Figure 4, at which the frost begins to melt and the point B, as shown in
Figure 4, at which frost removal is completed. Appellant (brief, pages 11-12) concedes
that the examiner
is correct in that Oishi, appears to disclose a heating
element (20), means for sensing the temperature of the
heating elements (22, 23), and a controller for determining
the rate of change of temperature of the heating elements
via the temperature sensing means (23, 24).
However, appellant argues on page 12 of the brief that the examiner’s obviousness
rejection should be reversed because: (1) Oishi fails to teach or suggest that by sensing
the rate of change the supply voltage can be determined, (2) there is no teaching in
Oishi that the voltage of the power source can vary, (3) Figure 4 clearly shows that the
rate of change of the temperature of the heating element is not proportional to the
supply voltage, and (4) the Oishi reference is not analogous art with respect to
appellant’s invention.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007