Accordingly, Baldwin has failed to rebut Frohlich’s prima facie case of obviousness with respect
to Baldwin claims 44 and 45.
Baldwin claim 47 recites that the heating element is an electrically resistive heating coil.
Frohlich argues that Toshiba, Howell, and Goswami disclose a resistive heating coil, and that it
would have been obvious to use a resistive coil as the heating element of Marney. Frohlich fails
to explain why it would have been obvious to use a resistive coil in place of the Marney heating
element. Accordingly, Frohlich has failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to Baldwin claim 47.
Baldwin claim 49 depends on claim 40 and recites a heat transfer element to charge the
phase change material and to distribute heat evenly to the phase change material. This claim is
similar to Baldwin claim 29. Frohlich makes the same argument with respect to the Le Poidevin
reference teaching the heat transfer element. Again Baldwin merely argues that the references
relied on do not teach a pizza heater. That argument is rejected as already discussed.
We assume that the prior art references apply to Frohlich’s involved claims, since
Frohlich has failed to state otherwise. Accordingly, the same rejections would apply to Frohlich
that apply to Baldwin. Here, however, Frohlich has conceded priority and thus judgment is
entered against Frohlich such that Frohlich is not entitled to any of its claims that correspond to
the count. Accordingly, we need not determine if Frohlich’s claims are also unpatentable over
the prior art of record.
Frohlich’s preliminary motion 2 is granted with respect to Baldwin claims 20-26, 28, 29,
40, 44-46, 48 and 49 and is otherwise denied.
Baldwin preliminary motion 1
- 23 -
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007