Appeal No. 2001-1548 Page 7
Application No. 08/907,512
combinations of prior art and specific claims, but must set forth
the rationale on which it relies.
In this case, the examiner has not provided any evidence or rationale to support the
conclusory statement that it would have been obvious to use a fluid filled jacket on
Perrine’s cylinders to increase the efficiency of the unit and, thus, has failed to set forth a
prima facie case of obviousness of the subject matter of appellant’s claim 4.
Claim 5
Claim 5, like claim 4, recites first and second cylinders and a heating jacket placed
around at least a portion of the second cylinder. Appellant and the examiner agree that
Kristapovich, the jumping off point for the examiner’s rejection, lacks a heating jacket. As
set forth on pages 7 and 8 of the answer, the examiner once again relies upon the
teachings of Zanarini for a suggestion to provide such a feature around the cylinder 22 of
the pump 13 of Kristapovich’s refrigerant transfer system. For the reasons expressed
supra with respect to the rejection of claim 4, we find no suggestion in Zanarini’s teaching
of a cooling jacket to provide any type of heat exchange jacket, much less a heating jacket,
on the cylinder of the pump 13 of Kristapovich’s refrigerant transfer system. Further, even
accepting the examiner’s statement (answer, page 7) that it was old and well known in the
art that the use of a conventional fluid filled jacket was an advantageously efficient way to
transfer heat to and from a cylinder, it is not apparent to us how this supports the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007