Appeal No. 2006-0576
Application No. 10/284,473
having ordinary skill in the art. Uniroyal Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5
USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v.
Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985),
cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d
1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
These showings by the Examiner are an essential part of complying with the burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of appealed
independent claims 1 and 17 based on the combination of Glaus and Hampden,
Appellant asserts that the Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness since proper motivation for the proposed combination of references has
not been established. After reviewing the arguments of record from Appellant and the
Examiner, we are in general agreement with Appellant’s position as stated in the Brief.
The Examiner proposes (Answer, page 4)) to modify the device of Glaus by
substituting the steel wool heat sink disclosed by Hampden for the cooling rib heat sink
structure disclosed by Glaus. In our view, however, the system described by Hampden
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007