Interference No. 104,180
Count 1
In a water heater having an upright cylindrical water tank with a flue pipe extending
therethrough, a cylindrical metal skirt extending downward from the cylindrical wall of said tank
for the support thereof, said skirt having a closed bottom end, and a gas burner positioned within
said skirt, the improvement comprising a radiant gas burner in the form of a circular perforated
ceramic flat plate fitted in said skirt as a transverse partition spaced from the bottom of said tank
to provide a combustion zone and spaced from said closed bottom end of said skirt to provide a
plenum for fuel gas and air injected thereinto, said ceramic flat plate having a diameter
substantially equal to the inside diameter of said skirt and having perforations over its entire face
except for a narrow rim portion by which it is supported in said skirt, refractory-type insulation
surrounding said perforations as lining of said skirt between said rim portion and the bottom end
of said tank and exposed to said combustion zone, and a venturi tube extending through said skirt
into said plenum for the injection of said fuel gas and air.
The claims of the parties which correspond to this count are:
Bartz et al. (Bartz) : Claims 1-3 and 5-8
Moore, Jr. et al. (Moore) : Claims 65-71
U.S. Patent No. 5,494,003 to Bartz issued February 27, 1996. On February 10, 1997,
Moore substantially copied claims 1-3 and 5-8 from the patent into its involved application for
the purpose of provoking an interference with the patent, and this interference was declared on
April 14, 1998 with count 1. Count 1 corresponds exactly to Moore claim 68.
Both parties took testimony, filed briefs and appeared for oral hearing.
The Issues
At page 6 of its brief, Bartz lists the issues as follows:
1. Is the invention of the count patentable to the senior party in view of the senior
party’s derivation of the invention from the junior party?
2. Did the junior party conceive and reduce to practice the invention defined by the
count prior to the senior party’s conception date of August 27, 1993?
3. Alternatively, are the parties to this interference joint inventors?
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007