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
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007