Appeal 2006-3326
Application 09/881,909
of the present inventors, as evidence that a thermal transfer bridge is not
formed in the Wisniewski system of the prior art.
Upon thorough review of Appellants' arguments and declaration
evidence, as well as the Examiner's Answer, we find that the Examiner has
established a prima facie case of inherency sufficient to shift to Appellants
the burden of establishing that the Wisniewski system does not, in fact,
allow for the formation of a thermal transfer bridge. In our view, Appellants
have not met their burden.
The Examiner sets forth a reasonable analysis of heat transfer in the
Wisniewski system at page 15 of the Final Rejection, which is incorporated
by reference into the Answer. To wit, the Examiner explains that cold
silicon oil is first pumped to the jacket of the Wisniewski vessel, which
cools the medium in the tank to the coolest temperature that the coolant oil is
capable of effecting. The coolant oil of the system achieves a higher
temperature during this heat transfer with the medium and is then piped to
the central cooling structure having fins corresponding to Appellants'
cooling structure. The heated cooling oil also cools the medium in the
central portion of the tank that is in communication with the structure, but
the medium in the central portion of the tank will always be at a higher
temperature than the medium near the wall of the tank that received the
initial cooling. Accordingly, we find the Examiner's conclusion reasonable
that "the temperature [of] the distal edge of the fin will always be higher
than at the interior side of the wall, which means that heat must be
transferred from the distal edge of the fin to the interior wall of the vessel
when the biopharmaceutical [medium] is frozen and cannot move, because
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013