Appeal No. 2001-1548 Page 3
Application No. 08/907,512
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. For the reasons which
follow, we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejections.
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites, inter alia, first and second cylinders, an intermediate block
sandwiched between respective ends of the first and second cylinders, a top block
positioned against an end of the first cylinder opposite the intermediate block, a bottom
block positioned against an end of the second cylinder opposite the intermediate block, a
first sensor positioned in a wall of the first cylinder, a second sensor positioned in a wall of
the second cylinder, a first heating jacket placed around at least a portion of the first
cylinder and a second heating jacket placed around at least a portion of the second
cylinder. According to the examiner, Perrine’s cylinders 10, 11 respond to the first and
second cylinders, respectively, and the center divider 14 and opposite end members 15
and 16 respond, respectively, to the intermediate, top and bottom blocks. The examiner
also reads the first and second sensors of claim 1 on the sensors 56 and 57 received in
the cylinder ends 15 and 16 (answer, pages 4-5 and 9). The examiner concedes that
Perrine does not disclose first and second heating jackets placed around at least a portion
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007