Interference No. 103,036
heat sinking problem arises due to the novel
arrangement of the apparatus. Specifically,
the planar heat sensitive indicator device is
in mechanical contact with the battery
housing over a wide area. The integral
mechanical contact also provides a high rate
of thermal conduction of heat from the
indicator device to the battery. Since this
structure with its attendant functional
requirements is novel to this invention, the
novel problem of heat sinking that is
associated with it was also novel and clearly
was not recognized by the party Burroughs et
al. or by the draftsman of the party
Burroughs et al.'s application. For these
reasons, at least, the heat sinking problem
and a solution to the heat sinking problem
would not have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art in view of the
party Burroughs et al.'s specification.
Therefore, the party Burroughs et al.'s
specification does not teach the concept of a
thermal insulating layer between the conduc-
tive layer and the housing of the battery, as
is recited by claims 16-23. [CR 61 to 62.]
Relying upon Dr. Feder's testimony at CR 61, paragraph
(90), and the decisions of Ex parte Parks, 30 USPQ2d 1234 (Bd.
Pat. App. & Int. 1994) and Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland
Trust Co., 305 U.S. 47, 39 USPQ 242 (1938), the party Cataldi et
al.'s main brief at page 97 urges that the Burroughs et al.
specification by using a thermally-responsive indicator without a
pyrotechnic material (the second embodiment) cries out for the
mention of a thermal insulator, "given that plastic of only 1 or
2 mils thickness is not sufficient to act as a thermal insulator,
even though it is of sufficient thickness to act as an electrical
insulator." Further, the brief contends that since the Burroughs
-30-
Page: Previous 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007