Ex Parte Wisniewski et al - Page 4

                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                           


                                                       4                                                        

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013