Appeal No. 2001-1418
Application 08/022,822
the claim be found in or fully met by the reference. Kalman v.
Kimberly Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
The examiner considers the subject matter recited in
independent claims 39 and 51 to be anticipated by Gammons because
[t]he perimeter of Gammons’ heat exchange structure is
formed by a channel having V-shaped convolutions which
face inward towards the cross-flow channels of the
structure. This portion of the structure is considered
the manifold. The width of the channel with these V-
shaped convolutions is the same as that of the cross-
flow channels as can be seen in Figs. 1 and 4.
Therefore, inherently, the width of this channel will
shrink to the same degree as the width of the cross
flow channels when the device is inflated [answer, page
4].
This position is unsound for a number of reasons.
To begin with, while a person of ordinary skill in the art
arguably would view the waffle-like grid pattern of the Gammons’
pad as encompassing a plurality of fluid-conducting channels,
such person would not view this pattern as embodying a manifold
in fluid communication with the channels at one end thereof as
recited in claim 39. The examiner’s finding that the portion of
the waffle-like pattern adjacent the peripheral seal 2
constitutes a manifold is arbitrary and capricious and has no
factual support in the Gammons disclosure.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007