Appeal 2006-3326
Application 09/881,909
heat transfer between the structure and the interior wall of the container.
Accordingly, we are satisfied that the Examiner has drawn the proper legal
conclusion that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the
art to resort to routine experimentation to determine the optimum distance
between the distal end of Wisniewski's fins and the interior wall of the
container. Appellants have not proffered any objective evidence of
unexpected results associated with the distances between the structure and
the interior wall of the container that are within the scope of the appealed
claims. As such, the Examiner's prima facie case of obviousness stands
unrebutted.
We also concur with the Examiner that there does not appear to be a
distinction between the thermal transfer systems of the admitted prior art,
wherein the fins or structures within the container contact the interior wall of
the container, and thermal transfer systems within the scope of the appealed
claims. While Appellants maintain that the present invention does not
contemplate "no gap" between the distal end of the fin and the interior wall
of the container, Appellants' Specification states otherwise, specifically, that
"the optimum gap may be no gap" (page 5 of Specification, line 8). The
Examiner also cites page 11 of the Specification, lines 14-16. For sure, the
reported optimum "no gap" would be the epitome of the claimed "close
proximity." Neither Appellants' principal nor Reply Brief explains why the
claim recitation "close proximity," when given its broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the Specification, does not embrace the optimum
"no gap" disclosed in the Specification.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013