Appeal No. 2003-1066
Application No. 09/841,277
129), the burners on the horizontal surface are clearly
indicated as floor burners while the burners on the vertical
surface are marked as wall burners. Because Kniel distinguishes
wall burners from floor burners, Kniel’s disclosure concerning
“a uniformly radiating wall” is of no help in establishing the
requisite motivation, teaching, or suggestion to provide the
types of floor burners (i.e., base burners) as required by the
appealed claims in the heaters of the admitted prior art or
Bauer.
Butcher has been cited merely for its teaching with regard
to “porous ceramic burners” as recited in appealed claims 5 and
6. Butcher therefore does not cure the deficiency in the
examiner’s basic combination of the admitted prior art or Bauer
with Kniel.
For the above reasons, we conclude that the examiner has
not carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
1984); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147
(CCPA 1976).
radiating surface. (Specification, p. 3, ll. 24-28; p. 6, ll.
17-22.)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007