Appeal No. 1999-0348 Page 5
Application No. 08/663,471
predetermined temperature is reached, Laibow does not disclose
an additional separate secondary thermal cut-off device as
recited in claim 1.
The examiner responded to the appellants argument
(answer, pp. 3-4) by asserting that Laibow's resistance heater
wire inherently will act as a thermal shut-off when it melts.
The appellants responded (reply brief, pp. 1-2) to the
effect that while Laibow's resistance wire of course will melt
at some temperature, this does not make it a thermal cut-off.
In this regard, the appellants cite the definition of "thermal
cut-off" as being a device that "automatically opens the
circuit of an electric motor or other device when the
operating temperature exceeds a safe valve."
Initially we note that anticipation by a prior art
reference does not require either the inventive concept of the
claimed subject matter or the recognition of inherent
properties that may be possessed by the prior art reference.
See Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 633,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007