Appeal 2006-3022
Application 10/286,434
Gardiner, 171 F.2d 313, 315-16, 80 USPQ 99, 101 (CCPA 1948). If the
prior art structure possesses all the claimed characteristics including the
capability of performing the claimed function, then there is a prima facie
case of unpatentability. In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664, 169 USPQ 563,
566-67 (CCPA 1971).
Analysis
The present record establishes that Jurrius teaches a sealing apparatus
that comprises a controller that detects when the sealing element is too hot or
is becoming too hot, and responds by reducing or terminating the heating of
the sealing element. Appellants contend that Jurrius discloses the
temperature is monitored and controlled only during the heating portion of
each cycle (Br. 7, 10). In support of this position, Appellants argue that the
language “adapted to” restricts the controller to specific parameters and
therefore is a structural limitation and that Jurrius does not function to
continuously maintain the temperature of the sealing element within the
temperature range for effective sealing of a film over a plurality of sealing
cycles (Reply Br. 4). It is undisputed that Jurrius describes a sealing
apparatus that comprises a controller for monitoring the temperature of the
heating element. Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, Jurrius discloses that
the controller (48) also monitors the temperature during the cooling cycle.
(See col. 9: 40-53). The claim language does not preclude the sensor from
monitoring the temperature both during heating and cooling process cycles.
Thus, we determine that the Examiner has a reasonable basis to believe that
Jurrius teaches a sealing apparatus that comprises a controller that is capable
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013