Appeal No. 98-0026
Application 08/536,304
opposite perspective results in the same conclusion. 2
Considering that Varney teaches using an electric micro heater
as the means for applying heat directly to the ice blockage,
the only difference between the method of Varney and that of
claim 1 is that Varney installs a connection in the pipe run
through which the support and the heater are inserted and
advanced,
whereas the claims require that the insertion be through an
aperture through which water flows in normal use. Mikkelson
teaches an alternative manner of introducing the heater into
the pipe, which is the same as that required by the
appellant’s claims.
We stand by our conclusion that the combined teachings of
the two references would have suggested the method recited in
2Where a rejection is predicated upon two references,
each containing pertinent disclosure which has been pointed
out to the applicants, it is merely a matter of exposition
that the rejection is stated to be A in view of B instead of B
in view of A; such differing forms of expression do not
constitute different grounds of rejection. See In re Bush,
296 F.2d 491, 496, 131 USPQ 263, 267 (CCPA 1961).
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007