Appeal No. 2002-2336
Application 09/081,765
With regard to the examiner’s rejection of claims 18 and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Franke in
view of Kozdon, we note that appellants have merely argued
(brief, page 14) that Franke in view of Kozdon does not show the
force-transmitting metal element for producing a flux of force
between the hot and cool parts, as claimed. For the reasons
already set forth above, we find this argument unpersuasive.
Appellants have not otherwise challenged the examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we also sustain the
rejection of claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
In summary, we have sustained both the examiner’s rejection
of claims 1, 8, 11, 16, 17 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based
on Franke, and the rejection of claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Franke in view of Kozdon. The
decision of the examiner is accordingly affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007