Appeal No. 2000-2230 Page 12
Application No. 08/706,767
"teachings of references can be combined only if there is some
suggestion or incentive to do so." Id.
All the claims under appeal require the pipe which
extends through the vaporizing liquid to be externally coated
with either a ceramic porous material (claims 25 to 34) or
either a fine metallic mesh or a compacted metal wool (claims
15 to 24). However, it is our view that these limitations are
not suggested by the applied prior art. In that regard, while
Scurrah does teach in Figures 1-2 a pipe 2 which extends
through the vaporizing liquid 3, Scurrah does not teach or
suggest using an external coating on that pipe. We see no
motivation in the teachings of the applied prior art (e.g.,
Tanaka's metal pipe 11 externally covered with a spongy metal
wire 12; Fukushima's ceramic coating; Seidenberg's ceramic
heat pipe wick) to have provided Scurrah's pipe 2 which
extends through the vaporizing liquid 3 with an external
coating/covering as recited in the claims under appeal.
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying Scurrah in
the manner proposed by the examiner to meet the above-noted
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007