Appeal No. 2003-2052
Application No. 09/403,674
said heat generating part”. Likewise, the dimples (35 and 36;
figure 5) cannot be in the cavity and, therefore, do not meet the
appellants’ claim 1 requirement of “at least one pressure
resisting column disposed in said cavity”.
Accordingly, we conclude that the examiner has not set forth
a factual basis which is sufficient to support a conclusion of
prima facie obviousness of the invention claimed in any of the
appellants’ claims.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007