Appeal No. 2000-0338 Page 4
Application No. 08/624,615
OPINION
After considering the record, we are persuaded that the
examiner erred in rejecting claims 9-16. Accordingly, we
reverse.
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or
appellants in toto, we address the main point of contention
therebetween. Admitting that Khurgin’s “ice formation
indicator . . . does not contain a Peltier element as the ice
sensor,” (Examiner’s Answer at 4), the examiner asserts, “it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to include a Peltier element
in the sensor structure in the ice detector of Khurgin for the
purpose of insuring correct and accurate sensors. Also, a
versatile, robust system that would work in a myriad of
weather conditions and thawing agents would be accomplished.”
(Id. at 4-5.) The appellants argue, "as recited in claim 9,
the Peltier element is utilized as a sensor to detect a very,
very small change in temperature due to a release of heat when
ice is formed. Such use of a Peltier element is in no way
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007