Appeal No. 2000-1952
Application No. 09/006,920
Appellants argue that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to combine the teachings unless Gururangan also had a cooling mechanism,
such as fins. (See brief at page 6.) We disagree with appellants, and we agree with
the examiner that it would appear at first glance that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to cool any motor in the manner disclosed by Lloyd.
Appellants argue that the presence of the electrical wires within the shaft of
Gururangan and Cox would interfere with the placement of the wick and would interfere
with any evaporative process. While the language of independent claim 1 does not
require the presence of a wick, the examiner has not addressed how the shaft would be
sealed with the wires routed therethrough at the top and the bottom so as to prevent the
liquid from evaporating and being lost through the opening without condensing. At
page 6 of the answer, the examiner maintains that the wires would not have to be
rerouted since the wick would be incorporated into the sides of the walls. The examiner
maintains that appellants have not provided any facts to support the argument that the
wires would interfere with the evaporation/condensation process. (See answer at
pages 6-7.) We agree with the examiner that appellants have not expanded upon the
basic argument, but we find that a closed system would be required in either
Gururangan or Cox to prevent contamination within the memory system. In our view
the incorporation of the wires through the hollow shaft would not make the sealing
thereof readily apparent to skilled artisans. Therefore, we find that it would not have
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007