Appeal No. 98-0026
Application 08/536,304
dissolving material to restrictions in the pipe caused by
scale, the conclusion is inescapable that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have been taught by the prior art,
including Mikkelson, to thaw ice blockages in pipes by
applying heat directly at the frozen point by inserting a hose
with heat issuing from the end of it through an aperture
opened in the pipe and pushing it through until it reaches the
blockage. The difference between this system and that recited
in the appellant’s independent claim 1 is that the claim calls
for the heat to be supplied by means of an electric micro
heater attached to the end of a support. However, melting ice
in a pipe by the use of an electric micro heater that is
pushed through the pipe to the point of blockage is taught by
Varney, which operates exactly like that of the appellant’s
invention except for its manner of insertion into the pipe.
As explained in our decision, it therefore is our opinion that
the combined teachings of these two references would have
rendered obvious the invention recited in claim 1.
Although the rejection is set forth on the basis of
Mikkelson in view of Varney, approaching the issue from the
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007