Baldwin has failed to sufficiently rebut Frohlich’s prima facie case of anticipation with respect
to Marney
as that reference is applied to Baldwin claims 20, 26 and 28, those claims are unpatentable to
Baldwin.
Baldwin claims 30, 36, and 38
Frohlich has failed to set forth a prima facie case of anticipation with respect to Baldwin
claims 30, 36, and 38 in view of Marney. Baldwin claim 30 is an independent claim and claims
36 and 38 depend on claim 30. Claim 30 recites, in the preamble, “a phase change thermal
storage assembly removably positioned in the pouch.” Frohlich has failed to demonstrate that
the phase change assembly, which as defined by claim 30, comprises a container with a volume,
a layer of phase change material in the volume, and a heater assembly positioned on one side of
the layer of phase change material, is removably positioned in a pouch. Frohlich argues that the
phase change thermal storage assembly is removably positioned in the case 10, but fails to
discuss in any meaningful way why that is so (motion at 15). Frohlich also directs us to several
lengthy passages in the Marney reference that allegedly meet the limitation in its appendix
(motion at 31). However, it is not enough to direct our attention to several lengthy passages that
allegedly meet a limitation without discussing or explaining the passages as they relate to the
claim language, especially, when as here it is not apparent from the passages that the limitation is
described.
Here, Frohlich fails to direct us to evidence that would demonstrate that the “assembly”
comprising the container with the phase change material and the heater element positioned on
- 17 -
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007