Appeal No. 2006-1951 Παγε 4
Application No. 10/392,140
answer. Upon consideration of the record before us, we make the
determinations which follow.
From our review of the entire record before us, we will
sustain, for the reasons which follow, the rejection of claims
10-13. We note at the outset that with respect to the
anticipation rejection of claims 10, 12 and 13, that appellants
have only presented arguments for independent claim 10.
Accordingly, we select claim 10 as representative of the claims
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
We start with the rejection of claims 10, 11 and 13 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Wenning. Turning to
claim 10, we note as background that it is well settled that if a prior art
device inherently possesses the capability of functioning in the manner claimed,
anticipation exists whether there was a recognition that it could be used to perform the
claimed function. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429,
1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appellants assert (brief, page 3) that Wenning is non-
analogous art because the reference is directed to a thermally
insulated housing and does not use the term “sink.” It is argued
that Wenning describes the housing as being used for a domestic
refrigerating appliance such as a household refrigerator or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007