Appeal 2007-2893
Application 10/818,885
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Proctor and Park.
Proctor teaches a device for transferring heat through a double walled
container (Proctor, title and abstract). Proctor’s container “may be used with
a liquid or solid held in any type or size container and is useable in the food
serving field in general. The present invention can be used with cafeteria
serving pans and coffee storage pots which store coffee made in large urns”
(Proctor, col. 4, ll. 62-66). Proctor’s “container includes an outer wall
adapted to be heated by a heating source and an inner wall secured to the
outer wall. A sealed cavity is formed between the inner and outer walls. A
heat transfer liquid is located in the sealed cavity” (Proctor, col. 2, ll. 24-27).
In addition, Proctor teaches that “[t]he heat-transfer liquid substantially fills
the sealed cavity and preferably is an oil” (Proctor, col. 2, ll. 33-34). More
specifically, Proctor teaches that the heat-transfer liquid does not completely
fill the space defined between the inner and outer walls (Proctor, col. 3, ll.
15-18), but instead is advantageously heated prior to sealing the liquid
between the two walls to create a vacuum as the liquid cools within the
sealed device (Proctor, col. 4, ll. 58-61).
According to Proctor, “[t]he heat-transfer liquid of the present
invention may be any of various heat-transfer liquids known in the art”
(Proctor, col. 4, ll. 8-9). The double-walled enclosure may be made of, inter
alia, stainless steel (Proctor, col. 3, ll. 60-63).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013