Appeal No. 1998-0912
Application 08/413,521
Appellant argues that the air space of Bolton, about
15% of the volume, would not allow a “bubble” to form at the
top of the container (brief-pages 3 and 4). Also, Appellant
contends, Bolton is not designed to protect the electronic
circuit regardless of orientation of the container (brief-page
4).
We agree with Appellant. Bolton never recites a
bubble, or anything similar thereto. Bolton’s “gas space or
cushion 12", as depicted in Figure 1, appears nothing like a
bubble. The only suggestion that Bolton’s space 12 might be
broadly considered as a bubble, is the fact that Appellant’s
claims call for such, i.e. hindsight.
Claim 1's requirement that “the elevated pedestal
segregates the electronic circuit from condensate regardless
of the container orientation” (emphasis added), has never been
addressed by the Examiner. To the contrary, Bolton suggests
that the orientation of the container remains vertical. At
column 4, lines 24-28, Bolton states:
When gas insulation rather than liquid
insulation is used there is, of course, no liquid
level in the tank above which the port 13 should be
placed and consequently the port and its covering
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007