Appeal No. 2003-0764
Application No. 09/660,797
(specification, page 11, ll. 5-7). We also determine that the
examiner’s finding from Ackert (col. 8, ll. 22-29) is not based on
factual support from this reference. Ackert teaches that the
temperature of each “segment” of incoming rail is sensed so that
the correct number of cooling headers may be used to cool each
“segment” of rail to the desired temperature (col. 8, ll. 22-29).
However, the “segment” Ackert refers to is clearly a segment of
length, not cross-section as determined and computed for the
different section parts of the appealed claim. See Ackert, the
abstract, where each “segment of the rail length” is subjected to
cooling; col. 6, ll. 57-63, where the computer-based control system
monitors the temperature variations “within the length of any
particular rail”; and col. 7, l. 49-col. 8, l. 10, where Ackert
exemplifies the computer-based control system showing only
temperature monitoring devices for the entry and exit end of the
cooling apparatus. Although Ackert teaches implantation of
thermocouples 1 mm, 10 mm, and 20 mm below the running surface of a
rail section, these temperature sensing devices are only sensing
the temperature of the rail head (col. 5, ll. 40-55). Therefore we
determine that Ackert does not disclose or suggest the claimed
limitations discussed above.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007