Appeal No. 1999-0348 Page 11
Application No. 08/663,471
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 8-9, and reply brief, p.
3) that Laibow does not disclose or suggest an electrical
heater assembly manufactured by the process of overmolding.
The examiner's position (answer, p. 4) is that "Laibow
shows all the structure recited."
In our view, the overmolding of the electrical heater
assembly step recited in claim 14 defines a structural
limitation (i.e., that the electrical heater assembly is
overmolded) not disclosed by Laibow. Since all the
limitations of claim 14 are not disclosed by Laibow, the
decision of the examiner to reject claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) is reversed.
Claims 15 to 18
Claims 15 to 18 depend from claim 14 and were rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Laibow in
view of Zeitoun. We will not sustain this rejection.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007