Appeal No. 2000-1952
Application No. 09/006,920
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Gururangan
or Cox with the teachings of Lloyd absent some additional teaching of showing of wires
or other articles traversing the hollow shaft while sealed. Therefore, we cannot sustain
the rejection of independent claim 1 over the combination of Gururangan or Cox with
Lloyd.
In an attempt to meet the limitation of dependent claim 7 the examiner turns to
the teachings of Turner to show sealing a heat pipe. (See answer at page 7.) Here we
note that the teachings of Turner are to weld the heat pipe end cap. Here we find that
this would not work well with the use of electrical wires traversing the hollow shaft.
Therefore, the use of Turner for later dependent claims would not remedy the
deficiency in the original combinations. Similarly, the examiner’s reliance upon
COMMON KNOWLEDGE as shown at page 3 of appellants’ specification would not
remedy the above noted deficiency in the combination. Therefore, we cannot sustain
the rejection of dependent claims 2-15.
We find that independent claim 16 contains similar limitations, and we will not
sustain the rejection of independent claim 16 and dependent claims 17-23.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007