Appeal No. 2001-0379
Application No. 09/141,891 Page 5
Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed.
Cir. 1985); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d
1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). These showings
by the examiner are an essential part of complying with the
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Note In
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or
evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the
evidence as a whole. See id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039,
228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
We begin with claim 1. The examiner's position (answer,
page 3) is that Kern lacks employing the air pump at the outlet
of the chamber, assuring a particular minimum air speed, and a
temperature sensor to sense a temperature rise of at least 10/C.
To overcome this deficiency in Kern, the examiner turns to Cox
for a teaching of using a temperature sensor to detect
temperature increases up to 300/C. In the examiner's opinion
(id.), to place the pump upstream of the combustion chamber
instead of downstream would be a mere matter of designing the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007