Without an explanation from Frohlich we don’t know how the reference applies to the particular
claim language, and thus Frohlich has failed to make out a prima facie case of anticipation.
Furthermore, Frohlich argues that Howell describes a helical heating coil 20 that meets
the limitation of the claimed “heater assembly.” Although Frohlich states that the helical heating
coil 20 is positioned on one side of the layer of phase change material, Frohlich has failed to
sufficiently explain how that is so. As seen in the sole figure, and described, helical coil 20 is
embedded in the thermally conductive material (Frohlich Ex. 2009, page 1, col. 2, lines 110-
111). Thus, as shown and described, the heater assembly is not positioned on one side of the
phase change material as claimed. Rather, the helical coil is surrounded by the phase change
material. Frohlich provides no explanation as to how the reference as applied describes a heater
assembly “positioned on one side” of the “phase change material.” For this additional reason,
Frohlich has failed to demonstrate that Howell, as applied, anticipates Baldwin claims 20 and 40.
Since Frohlich has failed to sufficiently make out a prima facie case of anticipation with respect
to Baldwin independent claims 20 and 40, we need not address the claims that depend from
claims 20 and 40.
Goswami reference
Frohlich argues that Baldwin claims 20-22, 26-27, 29, 40, 46-47 and 49 are anticipated
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by Goswami6. 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.
6 U.S. Patent 5,687,706, granted 18 November 1997, based on application 08/428,905,
filed 25 April 1995 (Frohlich Ex. 2010).
- 15 -
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007