Appeal No. 2003-1103 Page 7
Application No. 09/212,029
Column 11, lines 20-29. We agree with appellants that “the clear implication of
the disclosure at column 11, line 28 of Schnipelsky et al., when properly
considered in context and taking into account all of the relevant disclosure . . . [as
discussed above], is that even when the thermal transfer wall is laminated, its
thermal path length (or wall thickness) is no more than about 0.3 mm, which is
entirely consistent with the earlier disclosure in column 8.” Reply Brief, page 5.
Specifically, the disclosure in column 8, line 35-36, refers to “constructing the
thermal transfer wall out of a plastic, or a laminate of plastic and metal.”
Schnipelsky, column 8, lines 35-36 (emphasis added). This means that the
thermal transfer wall may be constructed out of plastic alone. As the reference
discloses, the plastic layer can range in thickness up to 0.03 cm. See
Schnipelsky, column 11, lines 25-26. Even at its maximum thickness of 0.03 cm,
the thermal transfer wall constructed out of plastic alone is still “no more than
about 0.3 mm,” which is equivalent to 0.03 cm. Id., column 11, line 29.
Therefore, we agree with appellants that this disclosure “does not indicate any
contrary meaning” to that of the first disclosure discussed above. Reply Brief,
page 5.
Finally, claim 4 of Schnipelsky in column 22, lines 19-22, specifically refers
to the method of claim 3, “wherein said wall has a thermal path length of no more
than about 0.3 mm.” Schnipelsky, column 22, lines 19-20 (emphasis added).
This third disclosure, specifically referring to the “wall” and a “thermal path length
of no more than about 0.3 mm” is quite telling. Schnipelsky’s claim 4 provides
further evidence that the term “thermal path length” as used by Schnipelsky,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007