Appeal No. 2001-2186 Page 4
Application No. 08/674,865
The specification indicates that the “the angle” referenced in claim 14 is the angle created
by placing the terminals around the circumference of the heating portion 21, i.e., the angle
between two lines extending from adjacent terminals to the center point of the circle (Fig. 2,
reference numbers 22, 23, 24, 25). The specification distinguishes the location of the terminals
from the prior art by noting that Appellants’ terminals are arranged at equal intervals along the
circumferential direction of the heating portion 21 whereas the prior art terminals are arranged at
an angle of 180° in the circumferential direction of the heating portion (specification at 19, ll. 1-
10 in combination with 15, ll. 11-20 and 4, ll. 19-24; also compare Fig. 2 at 22, 23, 24, 25 with
Fig. 9 at 106, 107). The equal intervals described and depicted in the specification are equivalent
to an angle of 90° as measured from the center point of the circle. Reading the claim consistently
with the specification requires that the terminals be placed substantially in the described and
depicted equidistant arrangement.
The Examiner relies on Wilsey as evidence that the terminal arrangement required by the
claims was known in the prior art. Wilsey does not have electrode connecting terminals arranged
as claimed. In Wilsey, pairs of terminals are arranged substantially 180° from each other. As
discussed above, the claims require a 90° spacing in relation to the circumference of the
cylindrical heater.
The Examiner has not established that each and every limitation of the claim is described
or suggested by the combination of prior art references or would have been obvious based on the
knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art and, thus, the Examiner has failed to establish a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007