Appeal 2007-1673 Application 10/056,237 Rejection, namely, (1) for improving heat transfer, (2) to facilitate ease of construction, and (3) to facilitate easy removal of the frozen mass. Appellants have presented no rationale why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been dissuaded from using the known dual flow heat exchange structure in the system of Wisniewski. Nor have Appellants proffered any evidence of unexpected results attached to the use of the known heat exchange structure. Indeed, it would appear that Appellants' Specification attaches no particular criticality to the use of a dual flow structure. In particular, Appellants' Specification states: It should be appreciated that one skilled in the art could use other flow patterns, fin shapes, and fin configurations to induce the medium to heat or cool in any preferred direction, uniformly, and/or at a specified rate without departing from the present invention. Additionally, parameters of the heat exchange fluid such as flow rate and/or temperature can be used to affect the rate at which the medium is cooled. [See paragraph [0067]]. Appellants' principal contention is that there is no disclosure or suggestion in Kalhori that the external tank walls are actively cooled, but, rather, "the vessel is wrapped with an electrical band heater to warm the medium from the outside while the cylinder within is cooling it" (sentence bridging pages 12 and 13 of Principal Br.). However, it is fundamental that it is not required for a finding of obviousness that all the features of one reference be physically incorporated into another reference. The relevant inquiry is what the collective teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Griver, 354 F.2d 377, 381, 148 USPQ 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013