written description support. It is Frohlich, as the moving party, who must demonstrate that
Baldwin fails to provide written description support for Baldwin’s involved claims. Here,
Frohlich has failed to sufficiently demonstrate that Baldwin’s involved claims are unpatentable
based on 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1.
Unpatentability of Baldwin’s claims based on prior art
Frohlich alternatively argues that Baldwin’s claims are unpatentable based on various
pieces of prior art (motion at 11).
Toshiba reference
Frohlich argues that Baldwin claims 20-22, 26-27, 29, 40, 46-47 and 49 are anticipated
by “Toshiba”3 (motion at 12). In that set of claims, Baldwin claims 20 and 40 are the only
independent claims. The remaining claims depend either directly or indirectly on claims 20 and
40. Baldwin claims 20 and 40 recite a layer of phase change material and:
a heater assembly positioned on one side of the layer of phase change material to charge
the phase change material in the internal volume with heat energy and distribute heat
evenly to the phase change material in the internal volume during charging of the phase
change material.
Frohlich argues that the latent heat storage material 9 meets the limitation of the phase
change material. Frohlich has failed to direct us to evidence that would demonstrate that a
“latent heat storage material” is the same as, or a subset of a “phase change material.” Frohlich
has failed to even address this difference. It may be that a latent heat storage material is a
particular type of a phase change material, or it may not. Without an explanation from Frohlich
we don’t know how the reference applies to the particular claim language, and thus Frohlich has
3 The “Toshiba” reference is a brief abstract of JP1-107045A, published 24 April 1989
(Frohlich Ex. 2008).
- 13 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007