Appeal No. 2006-1228
Application No. 09/802,982
examiner incorrectly considers Suzuki’s radiator to be a
condenser (answer, page 7). Because the examiner has not
established that the applied prior art would have fairly
suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a valve system
for bypass around a condenser, we reverse the rejection of claims
18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Noda in view of Enomoto and
Suzuki.
Rejection of claims 12 and 20-23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Noda in view of
Enomoto, Obara and Suzuki
The examiner argues that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to combine Suzuki’s condenser bypass
control valves (45) with the other applied references (answer,
page 8). As pointed out above, Suzuki’s bypass is around a
radiator instead of a condenser. Also, the examiner has not
explained how the applied references would have fairly suggested
the appellant’s modular casing to one of ordinary skill in the
art.
We therefore reverse the rejection of claims 12 and 20-23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Noda in view of Enomoto, Obara and
Suzuki.
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007