Appeal No. 2002-0063 Page 5
Application No. 09/324,825
The pertinent teachings of the applied prior art relied upon by the examiner are
set forth on pages 2-4 of the final rejection.
After the scope and content of the prior art are determined, the differences
between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966). In the rejections before us
in this appeal, the examiner has not ascertained the differences between the prior art
and the claims at issue.2 Based on our analysis and review of the four primary
references (i.e., Kondo, Redikultsev, Charm and Barnebey) and claim 21, it is our
opinion that the differences are (1) a cooling unit including (i) a cooling element in
proximity to the vessel and having an inlet port for injection of a liquid phase change
coolant, a heat absorbent area, and an outlet port for removal of said phase change
coolant in a gaseous state and (ii) injection means for injection of a phase change
coolant in liquid form into the inlet port of the cooling element for creation of cooling by
phase change from a liquid state to a gaseous state; and (2) control means connected
to the at least one cooling unit and the at least one heating unit for programmable
automatic control of the injection means to control at least one of on/off flow and rate of
2 As set forth in Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2141 "Patent examiners carry
the responsibility of making sure that the standard of patentability enunciated by the Supreme Court and
by the Congress is applied in each and every case" and that Office policy has consistently been to follow
Graham v. John Deere Co. in the consideration and determination of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007