Appeal No. 2000-0290 Page 4
Application No. 08/670,805
surrounding said primary bore and having longitudinal
axes parallel to the longitudinal axis of the primary
bore provided therein and a heat pipe tightly embedded in
each secondary bore, said heat pipe comprising a copper
tube having water sealed therein, said method comprising
the steps of: providing said annular wall; inserting a
heat pipe into each secondary bore, said heat pipe having
an outer diameter which is smaller than the inner
diameter of the secondary bores and heating the heat
pipes to convert the water sealed therein to steam and
plastically deforming the heat pipes by the vapor
pressure of the steam to be tightly fitted in the bores,
wherein the improvement comprises said copper tube being
an oxygen-free or phosphorus deoxidized copper tube
initially having a temper of 0 or 1/16H and a Vickers
hardness in the range of 40 to 90 after plastic
deformation by the steam.
The examiner's rejection (Paper No. 16, page 2) is based
on AAPA (everything in claim 10 prior to "the improvement
comprises") teaching the method essentially as claimed except
for the particular material used (everything in claim 10
following "the improvement comprises"). As to this
difference, the examiner then determined that the difference
is an article consideration "deemed to carry no patentable
weight in a claim to a method of manufacture."
The appellants argue (brief, page 4) that the failure of
the examiner to give weight to the particular material used
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007