Appeal No. 2001-2423
Application 08/931,253
tubular outer thermoelement is held in place in the tubular outer
thermoelement by electrical insulation (12) which fills the
annular space between the inner and outer thermoelements (col. 2,
lines 25-27). The rod-like inner thermoelement extends beyond an
open end of the tubular outer thermoelement (figure 1).
Thus, Hajny’s thermocouple meets all of the requirements of
the appellant’s claim 1 and, therefore, anticipates the
millivoltage generator claimed in that claim.
The appellant argues that Hajny’s weld electrically connects
the end of the rod-like inner thermoelement to the end of the
tubular outer thermoelement and physically seals the end of the
tubular outer thermoelement, whereas the appellant’s rod is fixed
directly to the tubular sheath without any intervening weld
material (supplemental brief, pages 6-7 and 9). We are not
persuaded by this argument because, as discussed above regarding
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, we
interpret “said rod having an end face thereof fixed against an
inner face of a closed end of said sheath” in the appellant’s
claim 1 as meaning that the end face of the rod is fixed against
a weld or other material which closes the end of the sheath.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) of claims 1 and 4 over Hajny and the rejections under
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007