Appeal 2006-1708
Application 10/186,253
1 For the above reasons we are not convinced of reversible error in the Examiner's
2 rejection of claim 1.
3
4 Unexpected Results
5 The Appellants attest nonobviousness in the form of unexpected results in
6 the affidavit of Puneet Saxena. Saxena states that the elimination of metal
7 evaporator screens was a change made possible by the new fin design and is an
8 unexpected result of the fin design (Saxena Decl. ¶¶ 6-7).
9 The Examiner contends the stated unexpected results have not been
10 compared to the closest prior art (Answer 13).
11 In addition, the Appellants contend that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §
12 103(a) is improper because the invention produced unexpected results that
13 contradict a reasonable expectation of success (Br. 10; Saxena Decl. ¶¶ 5-8). The
14 Examiner contends that the references had a different motivation for combining
15 and that there was a reasonable expectation of successfully optimizing thermal
16 performance (Answer 16).
17 Evidence showing unexpected results must be shown to be unexpected as
18 compared with in the closest prior art. In re Baxter, 952 F.2d. at 392; 21 USPQ2d
19 at 1285. The Appellants have made a comparison between Assignee’s previous
20 evaporator with U shaped fins and a metal screen, and the claimed evaporator with
21 V shaped fin without the metal screen. The Appellants have not made a
22 comparison between an evaporator with V shaped fins, such as is disclosed in
23 Beamer, and the claimed evaporator with V shaped fins. The Assignee’s previous
24 evaporator with U shaped fins is not the closest prior art and cannot be used to
25 establish unexpected results.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013