Appeal No. 2003-1836 Page 17
Application No.10/085,590
Because Persem invites the use of known techniques for mounting a controller;
and Voss teaches that mounting control electronics within the housing of a refrigeration
compressor cools the electronics and simplifies electrical hookup, we are persuaded
that the references would have suggested mounting Persem's controller within the shell,
i.e., the housing, of a compressor. Therefore, we affirm the obviousness rejection of
claim 25.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 20-23 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, is
reversed. The rejections of the same claims under § 103(a), however, are affirmed.
"Any arguments or authorities not included in the brief will be refused consideration by
the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. . . ." 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(a).
Accordingly, our affirmance is based only on the arguments made in the briefs. Any
arguments or authorities not included therein are neither before us nor at issue but are
considered waived. No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007