Appeal No. 1998-2148
Application 08/764,783
are immaterial as to its equivalence to reentrant cavity 2.
See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1350, 213 USPQ 1, 5 ((CCPA
1982).
Appellants further argue that Postma’s cylinder 11
has no substantial thermal connection to base 10 or any
fixture, and that “Postma et al. simply does not remove heat
in the way Appellants remove heat.” (Brief-pages 11 and 12.)
The Examiner responds “The cylinder being a light
and thermally-conductive cylinder is the only requirement of
the claimed invention...” (answer-page 5).
We agree with the Examiner. Claims 1 and 8 state:
a cylinder formed of a light thermally-conductive
metal disposed in said reentrant cavity, said
cylinder being attached to said lamp base
We can find no claim limitation requiring the cylinder to have
a substantial thermal connection to anything. Postma’s
cylinder is “a thin-walled cylindrical metal body” (column 1,
line 40), “preferably in the form of a foil” (column 2, line
41), which may be a copper foil (column 3, line 26). Postma’s
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007