Appeal No. 1998-2148
Application 08/764,783
Examiner consider comments made by another Examiner regarding
a different application. We are unaware of any requirement
for the Examiner to do so. Each patent application is treated
separately, and the relevance of a particular prior art
reference to different claims can vary vastly. A glance at
the other Examiner’s comments leads one to believe that the
other application was actually claiming some sort of thermally
conductive path. As noted supra, no such path or heat removal
is recited in Appellants’ claims. We agree with the Examiner
that “Another examiner’s work has no bearing on whether or not
the present application is allowable or not. It is
irrelevant.” (Answer-page 6.)
Turning to Appellants’ appended CHART, we will
address the notes made with regard to each claim.
Claim 1
Appellants object to their reentrant cavity being
equivalent to Postma’s protuberance 3. We have addressed this
point supra, and find no claimed distinction.
Appellants note their fixture is disclosed as being
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007