Appeal 2006-1708
Application 10/186,253
1 1502-03 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990). Compare Demaco Corp. v. F. Von
2 Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392, 7 USPQ2d 1222, 1226 (Fed. Cir.),
3 cert. denied, 488 U.S. 956 ( 1988). See also Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls
4 Corp., 776 F.2d 309, 315, 227 USPQ 766, 770 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (commercial
5 success may have been attributable to extensive advertising and position as a
6 market leader before the introduction of the patented product); In re Fielder, 471
7 F.2d 640, 646, 176 USPQ 300, 305 (CCPA 1973) (success of invention could be
8 due to recent changes in related technology or consumer demand; here success of
9 claimed voting ballot could be due to the contemporary drive toward greater use of
10 automated data processing techniques).
11 To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), it must be shown
12 that each element of the claim is found, either expressly described or under
13 principles of inherency, in a single prior art reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-
14 Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
15 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
16
17 ANALYSIS
18
19 Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
20
21 The Appellants invented an evaporator having a series of parallel spaced,
22 vertically oriented, refrigerant flow tubes (12) (Specification 5:30), the tubes
23 having opposed surfaces (14) separated by a distance (c) (Specification 5:1-2). A
24 corrugated air fin (16) is located between the opposed surfaces (14) with the
25 corrugations comprising V-shaped fin walls (18) diverging from and joined at a
26 crest (20) having an interior radius (r) (Specification 6:1-6). Each fin wall
27 comprises a louver (22) having a length (l) (Specification 6:6-9). Adjacent crests
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013