Appeal No. 2003-0161
Application No. 09/578,575
reasoning. The examiner’s mere speculation is not a sufficient
basis for a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Warner,
379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied,
389 U.S. 1057 (1968); In re Sporck, 301 F.2d 686, 690, 133 USPQ
360, 364 (CCPA 1962). Also, the examiner’s argument that both
frozen panels and electrical cooling systems are well-known
cooling means does not take into account the context in which
they were known and explain why one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to substitute frozen panels which were
known in the context of cooling shipping containers for an
electrical cooling system which was known in the context of
cooling food items in a display canister.
In addition, the examiner has not taken into account
Christiansen’s teaching that the cooling system maintains the
items at a reasonably constant temperature throughout the entire
area of the storage zone (col. 2, lines 31-35), and provided
evidence or reasoning which shows that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in
obtaining such cooling using Cook’s frozen panels instead of
Christiansen’s electrical system.
Because the examiner has not established that the applied
references would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007