Ex Parte Bellander - Page 4




             Appeal No.  2006-3002                                                                                
             Application No.  10/399,820                                                                          
             293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985); 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).  If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the applicant to                 
             overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence.  Obviousness is then                    
             determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole.  See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d                 
             1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,                 
             223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189                     
             USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).                                                                           
                    The examiner's position (answer, page 3) is that                                              
                    It is considered to have been an obvious matter of product design as to                       
                    how big each compartment was relative to the other and whether they are                       
                    operated at about the same temperature since the two compartments are                         
                    well-insulated from each and can be sized accordingly to the intended use                     
                    of each compartment.                                                                          
                    Appellant’s position (brief, page 5) is that the examiner’s assertions are                    
             unsupported by any objective evidence and that the modifications suggested by the                    
             examiner would result in at least one of the two compartments being inoperative for its              
             intended purpose.   It is argued (brief, page 6) that the modifications of Shueh                     
             suggested by the examiner would result in the freezer compartment and the fresh food                 
             compartment being cooled to the same temperature, and the freezer compartment                        
             being larger than the fresh food compartment.  Appellant further argues (id.) that by                
             definition, the freezer compartment is not set to the same temperature as the fresh food             
             compartment.                                                                                         
                    The examiner responds (answer, page 5) that modifying Shueh such that there                   
             are two fresh food compartments and no freezer would not have been an unobvious                      
             modification because the size and the temperature of the compartment has no effect on                
             how the drain pipe functions.                                                                        

                                                        4                                                         





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007