Appeal No. 96-0661
Application 08/189,833
treating these claims, the examiner has taken the position
(answer, page 6) that
"the use of a coating of a metal oxide powder on a
heating element used in a heating apparatus is considered
well known and routine of which the Examiner takes judicial
notice. The exact composition and the thickness of the
coating would have been a matter of engineering design
depending on the material to be heated and the desired
heating temperature and obvious to an ordinary artisan and
could be easily determined through routine trial and error
experimentation."
The examiner has likewise taken "judicial notice" of the
subject matter set forth in appellant’s claim 9 on appeal,
urging that tortuous channels in a fluid heating container are
also well known in the art of fluid heaters.
In the brief, pages 6-7, appellant has argued that none
of the applied references disclose or suggest the subject
matter of claims 4, 8, 9 and 11 through 18 on appeal, and
notes, in addition, that the references also do not teach or
suggest a means to introduce jets of water to the exhaust gas
which emanates from the heating element, as required in claim
10 on appeal. In the reply brief, pages 3-4, appellant has
traversed the examiner’s assertions based on "judicial notice"
and requested that the examiner provide appropriate references
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007