Appeal No. 2003-0760
Application No. 05/730,221
examiner’s answer (Paper No. 21) and the appellant’s brief and
reply brief (Paper Nos. 20 and 22, respectively).
Appellant’s Invention
The invention is adequately described on pages 1 and 2 of
appellant’s brief under the heading “Statement of the Invention”.
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
of Claims 9, 10, 13-16, 19, 20 and 23-26
The examiner contends that motivation to substitute the
electric heating system of Marcoux, which utilizes material
having a positive temperature coefficient, for the electric
heating system of Mitchell, which utilizes heater and a rheostat,
is to avoid the disadvantages of a thermostat. According to the
examiner, these disadvantages are temperature fluctuation and a
relatively short life of the device.
Appellant submits that there is no suggestion from the
references which justifies a combination thereof. Appellant
argues that the examiner’s position presupposes that the prior
art suggested a need for or desirability of a cutting blade
maintained at a constant elevated temperature and that nowhere in
the references can such a suggestion be found.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007