Appeal No. 1997-3028
Application 08/290,083
n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902,
221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In the reply brief, Appellants argue that the Exam-
iner, in effect, is relying on the common knowledge and common
sense to determine that he or she should use a second gas
which is different from the first gas. Appellants argue that
one of ordinary skill in the art using his or her common
knowledge and common sense and aware of the cited prior art
would utilize
the same gas in both gas section members in the gas storage
reservoir, since that is the only thing taught or even sug-
gested in the prior art.
Upon our review of the references, we fail to find
any suggestion or teaching that would lead one of ordinary
skill in the art to make the proposed modification suggested
by the Examiner. In fact, we note that Harrold suggests
mixing the insulating gases from the outset rather than using
a single gas by itself. Kuroda teaches a gas mixture from the
outset and does not have a single insulating gas within a
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007