Appeal No. 2000-0803
Application 05/333,233
constitutes a first reason necessitating reversal of the
examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
With respect to the examiner’s proposed modification of
Thompson in view of Bryan, even if a conically shaped
component such as element 50 of Bryan were to be incorporated
into Thompson’s device, the ensuing device would not respond
to the requirement of claim 1 that the mantle have a closed
end. This is so because, in our opinion, the apertures in
Bryan’s component 50 would permit gases to flow therethrough
and thus not “close” the end of the mantle. This constitutes
an additional reason necessitating reversal of the examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 to the extent it is based on Thompson as
the starting point of the rejection.
Concerning the examiner’s proposed modification of Schade
in view of Bryan, it appears to us that the cap at the upper
end of Schade’s heat absorbing and dissipating element 26
would need to be retained upon incorporating a conically
shaped component such as element 50 of Bryan therein in order
to meet the claim limitation calling for a mantle having a
closed end. However, it is not clear why the ordinarily
skilled artisan would do this if the incorporated conically
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007