Appeal No. 1998-1004
Application 08/401,984
Accordingly, we conclude that, prima facie, one of ordinary skill in the art following the
disclosure of Levendis alone and armed with the knowledge in the art as set forth in this reference,
would have substituted a ceramic covered resistive filament or coil heater fashioned to fit the bottom of
electric burner devices 60 and 120, which would include incorporation of the heater element in the base
plates of these devices, and thus would have reasonably arrived at the claimed invention as
encompassed by claim 24.
With respect to the second ground of rejection, we find that each of Sword (e.g., page 1, lines
1-11; page 1, line 99, to page 2, line 49; heating unit 27, FIGs. 2-7), Comstock (e.g., col. 1, lines 3-6;
col. 2, lines 6-24; col. 3, lines 11-17; electric heating element 48, FIGs. 4-7) and Friedberg (col. 1,
lines 19-28 and 60-61; col. 2, lines 36-50; heating element 12 in housing 11, FIGs. 1 and 3)3 discloses
that it was known in the incinerator arts to cover the electric heating element, thus separating it from the
combustible material for purposes of protection and incineration efficiency. Therefore, prima facie, one
of ordinary skill in this art would have found in the combined teachings of Levendis and these
references, the reasonable suggestion to cover the electric heating element of Levendis in the reasonable
expectation of protecting the electric heating element and thus increasing the incineration efficiency of the
apparatus disclosed therein.
Turning now to claims 27 and 30, we interpret the term “partition” in claim 27 as having its
common and ordinary dictionary meaning of “[s]omething that separates, such as a partial wall dividing a
larger area,” The American Heritage Dictionary Second College Edition 906 (1982), because we
find that one of ordinary skill in this art would have so interpreted the term in light of the written
description in the specification (paragraph bridging pages 25-26) and the specification FIGs. 14 and 15
(partial partition 502 having opening 502a). However, we find that the common definition includes a
complete partitioning, such as a wall fully dividing a large area, and thus we will not read into claim 27
the limitation that the “partition” of the transport
pipe is a partial one as described in the specification. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162
USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969). Therefore, the term “partition” as used in claim 27 encompasses
3 A discussion of Kunowich is not necessary to our decision.
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007