Appeal 2006-3326
Application 09/881,909
(second Declaration, page 2, para. 8). However, there is no evidence of
record that a distance of greater than 4 inches, e.g., 4.1 inches, prevents the
formation of a thermal transfer bridge between the fin and the interior wall
of the container. For instance, Appellants' Specification provides no
evidence that the distance must be less than 4 inches. Rather, Appellants'
Specification states that the distance of the thermal bridge is a function of
the thermal properties of the medium and the system and other relevant
parameters and that "[t]he size of the gap to be filled by the bridge can be
determined through simple trial and error, and the optimum gap may be no
gap" (page 5 of Specification, ll. 7-8). The Specification further states that
the "optimum gap is proportional to the thickness of the fin [and that] [i]n
another aspect of the present invention, the optimum gap is less than 2
inches, preferably less than 1 inch, more preferably less than 1/2 inch, and
even more preferably less than 1/4 inch, and most preferably less than 1/8
inch" (page 5, ll. 17-20). Hence, it can be seen that Appellants' Specification
fails to provide evidence that a thermal bridge is not formed when the
distance between the distal end of the fin and the interior wall of the
container is 4 inches or greater. Manifestly, the disclosure of an optimum
distance falls far short of a teaching that greater distances preclude the
formation a thermal bridge.
In response to the Examiner's requirement that Appellants provide
objective evidence that the Wisniewski system does not form a thermal
bridge, Appellants lodge the following complaint:
In fact, it is apparent that nothing short of actual experiments
and/or computer analysis on all the prior art, including devices
not in the possession or control of Appellant, would satisfy the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013