Appeal No. 1999-0946
Application No. 08/693,641
and an air space is present within the gap, acting as an insulating barrier which minimizes
heat migration into the outer wall and threads. Independent claims 1 and 6 are
representative of the subject matter on appeal and a copy of these claims can be found in
the Appendix to appellant's brief.
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims are:
Hall 1,423,560 July 25, 1922
Orimoto et al. (Orimoto) 5,447,766 Sept. 5, 1995
As stated in the final rejection (Paper No. 6), claims 1 through 7 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Orimoto in view of Hall.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the final rejection
(Paper No. 6, mailed February 27, 1998) and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 11,
mailed August 3, 1998) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection,
and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 10, filed June 4, 1998) and reply brief (Paper No.
12, filed August 24, 1998) for the arguments thereagainst.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007