Appeal No. 98-0026
Application 08/536,304
rejection of the
thirteen claims before us and the Section 103 rejection of
claim
13, but sustained the Section 103 rejection of claims 1-3 and
7-12. It is the appellant’s primary position that there would
have been no suggestion to combine the teachings of Mikkelson
and Varney in the manner set forth in the Section 103
rejection that we sustained. While we have carefully
considered all of the appellant’s arguments, we maintain our
position that the subject matter recited in the rejected
claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art in view of the combined teachings of Mikkelson and Varney.
This being the case, while we have reconsidered our decision
in the light of the arguments set forth by the appellant in
the request under 37 C.F.R. § 1.197(b), we shall not modify
it.
As revealed in column 1 of the Mikkelson reference:
It is known to clear conduits of ice by inserting
flexible tubing or hosing into frozen conduits and
forcing steam through the tubing to melt the ice in
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007