Appeal No. 2005-0245 Page 5 Application No. 09/848,032 combustion engines in the art related to internal combustion engines. Gopp provides a solution: power the engine with alternating cylinders so that the engine can be cooled by drawing fresh air through the deactivated cylinders. The benefit of incorporating this solution into the hybrid vehicle of Kitada would have been readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art as it would allow the hybrid electric vehicle to operate even when it is overheating and the battery is dead. The Examiner has established that there was a reason, suggestion, or motivation to make the combination which was grounded in the prior art. Such evidence shows that the rejection is not based upon improper hindsight reconstruction. The contentions of Appellant do not persuade us of reversible error in the Examiner’s position. We conclude that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the subject matter of claims 15-18 which has not been sufficiently rebutted by Appellant. CONCLUSION To summarize, the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007