Appeal 2006-2489
Application 09/900,771
Long is directed to a radiator 22 including a radiator body 30. This radiator
body is made of thermally conducting material such as metal. It serves to
remove heat generated by a heat source from the spacecraft, but unlike
Okamoto’s phase-change material, it does not become an insulator as the
temperature changes. The Examiner has not sufficiently explained why one
of ordinary skill in the art would further include the radiator 22 of Long in
addition to the film of Okamoto and reduce the thickness of the phase-
change material. The phase-change material serves a function, i.e., variable
temperature insulating, that the materials of the radiator 22 of Long do not.
On its face, it would appear that the Examiner’s proposed combination
would lose insulating function and be counter to Okamoto’s desire to save
space and lessen weight in a passive heat control device. We also note that
the coating 44 of Long is a white thermal control paint (Long, col. 4, ll. 50-
54) meant to reflect incident thermal energy away from the spacecraft when
the radiator is facing the sun (Long, col. 6, ll. 35-37). One of ordinary skill
in the art would not have covered this coating with another material.
E. Conclusion of Law
We find that the Examiner failed to provide a level of evidence
sufficient to support the Examiner’s finding of a reason, suggestion, or
motivation to make the required modification to Long’s radiator. Such a
reason, suggestion, or motivation is required to support a prima facie case of
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). This lack of evidentiary support is
present in each of the rejections. None of the additional prior art references
relied upon the Examiner cures the deficiency of the Long and Okamoto
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013