Appeal No. 2004-1244
Application 10/085,280
cannot slip through any space between the tube 89 and
the casting 84 and must follow the spiral path 88
[column 6, lines 41 through 55].
According to Kaiser, the foregoing freezer construction is
advantageous in terms of cost and efficiency:
[t]he refrigerant enters the freezer 32 at the
refrigerant inlet 90, at the back of the freezer 32,
passes through the spiral passageway 88, and leaves
through the refrigerant outlet 92, near the front of
the freezer 32. This arrangement minimizes the expense
in making the freezer and provides for good heat
transfer from the refrigerant to the product (avoiding
problems of gaps between the coil which holds the
refrigerant and the body of the freezer which are
common in prior art designs), thereby improving the
efficiency of the present evaporator over prior art
evaporators [column 7, lines 6 through 16].
Kaiser’s description of these cost and efficiency benefits
would have provided the artisan with ample suggestion or
motivation to utilize the particular freezer construction
disclosed by Kaiser in place of the cooling jacket disclosed by
Beusch. The appellant’s contention that this would “drastically
modify Beusch’s intended operation” (reply brief, page 3) has no
basis in the fair teachings of either reference. As so modified
in view of Kaiser, the Beusch ice making apparatus would meet all
of the limitations in claims 1 and 4.
Hence, the combined teachings of Beusch and Kaiser justify a
conclusion that the differences between the subject matter
recited in claims 1 and 4 and the prior art are such that the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007