Appeal No. 1997-3704 Application 08/572,183 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over (1) Preiss in view of Harris and Ponczek and (2) Preiss in view of Harris, Ponczek and Akeyoshi, Ballentine or Jin, and reversed the examiner's rejections of claims 8 through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over (1) Preiss in view of Harris, Ponczek, Wetterhorn and MIL-STD-454F and (2) Preiss in view of Harris, Ponczek, Wetterhorn and Akeyoshi, Ballentine or Jin. We have carefully considered the arguments raised by appellant in the request for rehearing, however, those arguments do not persuade us that our decision was in error in any respect. The first argument (pages 1 and 2) raised by appellant is that “appellants' ‘joint’ is comprised of solder that fractures to allow a controlled release and is not dependent nor structurally equivalent” to the plug taught by Ponczek (emphasis original). Specifically, appellant calls our attention to Ponczek’s teaching that the pressure relief valve 78 “blows” upon a predetermined increase in pressure within the housing 11 (col. 4, lines 6 and 7) while claim 1 calls for a “joint” comprised of solder that fractures at a 2Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007