Appeal No. 2003-1723
Application 09/849,705
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determination that the above-noted
§ 103 rejection will not be sustained. Our reasons follow.
In the rejection of claims 1 through 3, 7 and 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the combined teachings of Schwecke
and Saunders, the examiner urges (final rejection, page 2) that
Schwecke discloses the invention “substantially as claimed,”
noting only that Schwecke discloses a system for stopping the
compressor of a refrigeration system/heat pump when the oil
heater (36) of the compressor fails to operate. Although failing
to identify any specific differences between the system of
Schwecke and appellants’ claimed subject matter, the examiner
next points to Saunders and observes that this patent teaches use
of a transformer (14) in a heating element circuit in order to
monitor the failure of the heater to operate. Following such
observation, the examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
appellants’ invention to have modified the system of Schwecke
“such that it included the use of a transformer in the oil heater
circuit in order to monitor the failure of the heater in view of
the teachings of Saunders” (final rejection, page 3). However,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007