element to the phase change material. Indeed, such motivation comes from the Le Poidevin
reference itself as discussed above. Accordingly, since Baldwin has failed to discuss in any
meaningful way why it would not be obvious to combine the references, Baldwin has failed to
rebut Frohlich’s prima facie case of obviousness with respect to Baldwin claims 21-23.
Baldwin claim 24 depends on claim 20 and recites a supporting element for the layer of
phase change material. Baldwin claim 25 depends on claim 24 and recites that the supporting
element is an open cell foam. Frohlich relies on Salyer8 to teach incorporation of phase change
material in foams, including open cell foams, to enhance insulating capacity. Again, with
respect to Baldwin claims 24 and 25, Baldwin merely argues that Frohlich fails to provide a
motivation to modify Marney. Here, Frohlich has provided a reason to combine the references -
to enhance the insulating capacity, and Baldwin has not sufficiently challenged that reason.
Accordingly, Baldwin has failed to rebut Frohlich’s prima facie case of obviousness as to
Baldwin claims 24 and 25.
Baldwin claim 27 depends on Baldwin claim 26 and recites that the heating element is an
electrical resistive heating coil. Frohlich argues that Toshiba, Howell, or Goswami disclose a
resistive heating coil (motion at 17). At least Howell does disclose a resistive coil. Frohlich,
however, with respect to Baldwin claim 27 fails to explain why it would have been obvious to
use a resistive coil in place of the Marney heating element. Frohlich merely asserts that it would
have been obvious to make the modification, but fails to provide a motivation for doing so.
Accordingly, Frohlich has failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
Baldwin claim 27.
8 U.S. patent 4,797,160, granted 10 January 1989 (Frohlich Ex. 2013).
- 21 -
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007