Appeal No. 2003-2113 Page 8
Application No. 09/712,582
arrive at the claimed invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596,
1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562
(CCPA 1972).
The pertinent teachings of the applied prior art have been adequately set forth in
the answer (pp. 4-5) and the brief (pp. 4-5). Based on our analysis and review of Sun
and claim 3, the only independent claim on appeal, it is our opinion that the differences6
are: (1) "two end caps, one positioned at each end of said pipe to hermetically seal said
pipe, the working fluid in one through hole communicating with the working fluid in
another through hole as a result of said removed portions of said partition walls;" and
(2) "one of a non-porous, straight wire and non-porous, straight wire mesh movably
positioned within said through hole such that a narrow space is formed between an
inner wall of said partition wall forming said through hole and a side portion of said
straight wire and [sic, or] wire mesh so as to cause sufficient capillary action."
With regard to the first difference, the examiner determined (answer, p. 4) that
such difference would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person of ordinary skill in the art from the teachings of Tanzer. We agree. With regard
6 After the scope and content of the prior art are determined, the differences between the prior art
and the claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ
459, 467 (1966).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007