Appeal No. 1998-2484 Page 13
Application No. 08/212,819
220°C, which is much lower than the brazing temperature of
metals. From all of the above, we see no reason, nor has any
persuasive reason been provided by the examiner, as to why a
skilled artisan would have been led to braze the insulating
material of JP’313, which would have been necessary in order
to have provided JP’313 with an outer groove and seal. We
therefore conclude that the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness of the invention of claim 2.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over JP’313 in view of Sweeny and Bawa is
reversed.
As claims 3 and 4 depend from claim 2, the rejection of
claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. With
respect to independent claims 8 and 13, both of these claims
include the insulated spacer between the flanges.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 8 and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed. As claims 9-11 depend from claim 8, the
rejection of claims 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
With respect to claims 6 and 12, we note that independent
claims 6 and 12 do not recite the insulating spacer between
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007