Appeal No. 2004-0929
Application No. 09/386,103
OPINION
We reverse the first, third and fourth rejections, and
affirm the other rejections.
The appellants indicate that the claims stand or fall
together as to each rejection (brief, pages 6-7). We therefore
limit our discussion of the four affirmed rejections to one claim
to which rejection applies, i.e., respectively, claims 1, 2, 7
and 8. See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1566 n.2, 37 USPQ2d 1127,
1129 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1995); 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1997).
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Allison ‘756
“Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in
issue be disclosed, either expressly or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference.” Corning Glass Works
v. Sumitomo Electric, 868 F.2d 1251, 1255-56, 9 USPQ2d 1962, 1965
(Fed. Cir. 1989).
The appellants’ independent claims 1 and 10, which are all
of the independent claims among claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11 and
14-17, both require a heat conductive rod within an inner
segmented cylinder defined by troughs of a thermally conductive
sheet which has been folded into alternating ridges and troughs.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007