Appeal No. 2003-0671 Page 4
Application No. 09/099,632
(b) a first cover layer that overlies at least a portion of the structured
polymeric surface and includes a closing surface to cover at least a
portion of the plurality of flow channels to make plural substantially
discrete flow passages; and
(c) a manifold in fluid communication with the substantially discrete
flow passages to allow a potential from a potential source to promote fluid
movement through the passages from a first potential to a second
potential, such fluid movement for thermally affecting the first cover layer
of material for promoting heat transfer between the moving fluid and the
first cover layer.
Rejection (1)
Claims 1, 21, 31, 32 and 34 stand rejected as being obvious in view of Phillips.
The test for obviousness is what the teachings of the applied prior art would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See, for example, In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). In establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness, it is incumbent upon the examiner to provide a reason why one of ordinary
skill in the art would have been led to modify a prior art reference or to combine
reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. See Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ
972, 973 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985). To this end, the requisite motivation must stem
from some teaching, suggestion or inference in the prior art as a whole or from the
knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art and not from the
appellants’ disclosure. See, for example, Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d
1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1439 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007