Appeal No. 1997-3028
Application 08/290,083
vessel prior to detection of an abnormality and introducing a
second insulating gas upon detection so that they provide a
mixture. Mulcahy simply teaches various insulating gases and
does not lead one of ordinary skill in the art to ignore the
teachings of Harrold or Kuroda in that a mixture of gases
should be provided. Finally, Ishikawa detects abnormalities
but does not add a second gas to the first gas within the
insulating device to result in a gas mixture. Therefore, we
fail to find that the prior art suggests the desirability of
the modifications suggested by the Examiner.
We have not sustained the rejection of claims 1, 3
and 5 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, the
Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007