Appeal No. 1997-3993 Page 9
Application No. 08/462,561
The examiner takes the position that the claimed "closed
water-containing vessel" is readable on Roop's pressure vessel
or vapor chamber 10 or Barbee's reservoir 10. Specifically,
the examiner believes that the type of liquid (i.e., water) in
the claimed vessel does not limit the claim. We do not 3
agree. In that regard, it is our determination that a "water-
containing vessel" structurally requires both a vessel and
water within the vessel. Since a "water-containing vessel"4
as set forth in claim 10 is not suggested or taught by the
applied prior art, we find ourselves in agreement with the
appellants that the claimed subject matter is not suggested by
the applied prior art.
3See the second paragraph of the supplemental answer.
4This is to say that "a water-containing vessel" is
structurally different from "a vessel for containing water."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007