Appeal No. 2004-1622
Application No. 09/431,178
the coolant holes, and certainly does not contemplate the
specific manufacturing advantage disclosed by the appellants for
ratios less than 1.2. Thus, in the absence of impermissible
hindsight, Howald does not justify the examiner=s implicit
conclusion that the ratio of the cross-sectional areas of the
hot-side and cold-side orifices is an art-recognized result
effective variable relative to cooling effectiveness. Hence,
Howald fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to the subject matter recited in claim 1.2 Accordingly,
we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. ' 103(a) rejection of
this claim.
2 This being so, it is unnecessary to delve into the merits of the appellants=
evidence of non-obviousness.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007