Appeal 2006-3326
Application 09/881,909
bridge is formed in a system that is reasonably similar to the one disclosed
by Wisniewski.
We now turn to the Examiner's § 103 rejections of the appealed
claims. We are in full agreement with the Examiner that the "secondary"
references clearly establish the obviousness of extending the fins of
Wisniewski in closer proximity to the interior walls of the container "in
order to advantageously increase the rate of heat transfer and "divide a tank
volume into compartments to decrease the freezing [and] the thawing time
and to reduce cryoconcentration effects" (1992 publication, page 136, col. 1,
first full paragraph)" (Final Rejection, sentence bridging pages 19 and 20).
It is clear from Wisniewski that the size of the fin is a result effective
variable with respect to heat transfer from the fin through the medium, and
the secondary references firmly establish that it was known in the art to
extend heat transfer structures or fins in close proximity to the wall of a
container. For example, the examiner points out that Morrison teaches than
fins 7 span nearly the entire interior of the container to "ensure maximum
heating or cooling surface, so that operation of the device may be carried out
with facility" (col. 1, ll. 8-13).
It is also well settled that it is a matter of prima facie obviousness for
one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimum value of a result
effective variable through routine experimentation. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d
272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980). In the present case, it is quite
clear that it was well known in the art at the time of filing the present
application that the size dimensions of heat transfer structures or fins of the
type disclosed by Wisniewski are result effective variables which control the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013