Appeal No. 2003-0764
Application No. 09/660,797
head facing downwardly and the base facing upwardly to a series of
defined immersion procedures of a very short duration in a trough
filled with water, while determining and computing heat quantities
to be proportionally removed from the different section parts and
the quantity of cooling medium required for removing the heat
(id.). A further understanding of the invention may be gleaned
from independent claim 1, a copy of which is attached as an
Appendix to this decision.
In addition to the admitted prior art found in appellants’
specification (pages 2-7),1 the examiner relies upon Ackert et al.
(Ackert), U.S. Patent No. 4,486,248, issued Dec. 4, 1984, as
evidence of obviousness. Accordingly, the claims on appeal stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the admitted
prior art found in appellants’ specification in view of Ackert
1The examiner lists “[t]he admitted prior art of the instant
disclosure, pages 2-7 of the specification” under “Prior Art of
Record” (Answer, pages 2-3, ¶(9); see also Answer, page 3, line
1). The examiner also states that the admitted prior art is
relied upon “as expressed on pages 3-6 of the specification for
example” (Answer, page 3, ¶(10)). For purposes of this appeal,
we consider these statements to be equivalent since pages 2-7 of
appellants’ specification contain the section “Description of the
Related Art” while the prior art references are actually
discussed on pages 3-7 of appellants’ specification.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007