Appeal No. 2004-0536
Application No. 09/823,072
and west facing body panels of a spacecraft and thermally
interconnect them with coupling heat pipes.
Neither Basuthakur nor Hosick discloses the presently
claimed heat dissipating equipment mounted on the heat pipes
disposed on the east and west facing panels. Hosick mounts the
heat dissipating equipment on the panels rather than the heat
pipes (see column 4, lines 55 et seq.). However, York evidences
that it was known in the art to mount heat dissipating equipment,
such as amplifier 36 and filter 40, on heat pipes.1 Accordingly,
we find that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill
in the art to mount the heat dissipating equipment of Hosick on
either the east and west facing panels or the heat pipes mounted
on the panels. We note that appellants have advanced no argument
why it would have been nonobvious for one of ordinary skill in
the art to mount the heat dissipating equipment of Hosick on the
heat pipes. Furthermore, appellants base no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results,
which rebuts the prima facie case of obviousness established by
the applied prior art.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
decision rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed.
1 A discussion of Doll is unnecessary to our decision.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007