Appeal No. 1999-0348 Page 4
Application No. 08/663,471
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
In the brief (p. 4), the appellants stated that
Claims 1, 3-11 and 27-29 stand or fall together; Claims
12-13 stand or fall together; Claims 14-18 stand or fall
together; and Claims 19-26 stand or fall together.
In accordance with the appellants grouping of claims and
arguments provided, we need to review only the rejections of
claims 1, 12, 14 and 19 to decide the appeal on the rejections
set forth above.
Claim 1
The examiner determined that claim 1 was anticipated by
Laibow. The examiner found (first Office action, p. 2) that
Laibow shows
a chemical delivery system with a can, a thermally
activated chemical (not shown) an electrical heater
assembly 19 with a resistance wire heater 22 and a
thermal cut-off device 23.
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 4-7) that while Laibow
does disclose thermostat-unit 23 which cuts off current when a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007