Appeal No. 2001-2423
Application 08/931,253
face of a closed end of the sheath. Consequently, neither of
these rods meets the above-mentioned requirements of the
appellant’s claim 1. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of
claims 1, 4, 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Sparrow.
As for the rejections of dependent claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, the examiner has not established that Sparrow would have
fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, the above-
discussed requirement of the appellant’s independent claim 1
pertaining to the rod, or established that the secondary
references remedy this deficiency in Sparrow. Therefore, we
reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Sparrow in view
of the secondary references.
Rejections over Hajny,
alone or with additional prior art
Hajny discloses a thermocouple (27) comprised of a tubular
outer thermoelement (9) having extending therewithin, in spaced
coaxial relation, a rod-like inner thermoelement (10) (col. 2,
lines 10-21; figure 1). “The elements 9 and 10 are electrically
joined at their outer ends by a welded bead 11 which also seals
the outer end of the tubular outer element 9 and forms the hot
junction for the thermocouple 27" (col. 2, lines 21-25). The end
of the rod-like inner thermoelement which is not welded to the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007