Appeal No. 1999-0555
Application No. 08/593,330
noted rejections.
OPINION
These rejections cannot be sustained.
The examiner acknowledges that the Japanese ‘848
reference contains no disclosure of the here-claimed L1/L2
ratio. According to the examiner, however, Yamada or Kato
would have suggested locating the heat generating portion of
the heater in the Japanese ‘848 detector in such a manner that
the ratio requirement of the appealed claims would be
satisfied. On page 7 of the answer, the examiner expresses
his position concerning this matter with the following
language:
Appellant’s [sic, Appellants’] range of ratios
goes from 0.9 to 1.3. The limits of this range
therefore do not stray far from 1. When the heat
generating portion of the heater in [Japanese ‘848] is
located at its lower end, as is obviously suggested by
Yamada or Kato, its length would inescapably correspond
with the distance between the two levels of openings in
the protecting cover (thereby meeting appellant’s [sic,
appellants’] recited range). In order not to be within
appellant’s [sic, appellants’] range, the heat generating
portion would have to extend substantially beyond or
short of the distance between the two levels of
openings. This would mean a heater either with such
a large heat generating portion as to be wasteful or with
such a small heat generating portion as to be
impractical. Neither makes any sense.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007