Appeal No. 98-0026
Application 08/536,304
the claim 1 to one of ordinary skill in the art. Our
reasoning with regard to the remaining claims is set forth in
the decision, and this has not been challenged by the
appellant in the request for rehearing.
The arguments advanced by the appellant focus upon
details of the structure and operation of the Mikkelson device
which, in the appellant’s view, would have mitigated against
combining the references in the manner that has been done. We
find them not to be persuasive insofar as the basic tenet of
the rejection is concerned, which is that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to introduce an
electric micro heater through an aperture opened in the pipe
through which water normally flows to provide heat to impinge
upon an ice blockage, in view of the combined teachings of the
two primary references.
Conceptually, the rejection is very simple. Mikkelson
provides the teaching of applying heat to an ice blockage in a
pipe by means of an element introduced through the particular
route recited in the claims. Varney provides the teaching of
applying heat to an ice blockage in a pipe by means of the
particular heating element required by the claims. Suggestion
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007