Appeal No. 2005-2546
Application No. 09/862,910
for the cooling chamber of the admitted prior art. Indeed, the
use of cooling coils in heat exchangers was notoriously well
known at the time of filing the present application. Appellant
has proffered no objective evidence that the claimed cooling coil
provides unexpected results relative to the cooling chamber of
the admitted prior art.
The principal argument advanced by appellant is that the
applied prior art does not address the problem solved by the
claimed invention, namely, reducing the large amount of costly
stainless steel used in making the cooling assembly. However, it
is well settled that it is not necessary for a finding of
obviousness under § 103 that the prior art articulate the same
motivation for modification as expressed by applicant. In re
Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430, 40 USPQ2d 1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
It is sufficient that the prior art provides some motivation for
the modification. In the present case, Litton demonstrates that
a helical cooling coil is a viable option for the cooling chamber
of the admitted prior art. Moreover, given the availability in
the prior art of helical cooling coils, we are confident that the
problem addressed by appellant, and its solution, would have been
readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re
Ludwig, 353 F.2d 241, 243-44, 147 USPQ2d 420, 421 (CCPA 1965).
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007