Appeal No. 2002-2336
Application 09/081,765
the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 20, filed
September 26, 2001) and reply brief (Paper No. 22, filed January
30, 2002) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determination that the examiner’s
rejections will be sustained. Our reasons follow.
Each of the independent claims before us on appeal requires
“at least one force-transmitting metal element for producing a
flux of force between the hot and cool parts.” Appellants’
principal argument on appeal is that Franke does not disclose or
teach any such force-transmitting metal element. More
particularly, appellants contend that Franke describes force
transmission through a ceramic force-transmitting element (5),
which is integrated into the heat barrier (3) and positioned in
the straight-line flux of force (6) to provide rigidity to the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007