Appeal No. 2004-0929
Application No. 09/386,103
Rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Grandmont in view of Hoffman
Claim 2, which depends from claim 1, requires that the heat
conductive rod is hollow.
Hoffman discloses an energy transfer device which can be a
heat sink having in its central portion an energy body which can
be a transport rod or a tube wall (col. 1, lines 10-12; col. 1,
line 68 - col. 2, line 1).
The appellants argue that “Grandmont et al. does not
disclose all of the claimed features with the exception of the
rod being hollow” (brief, page 19). These claimed features are
disclosed by Grandmont as discussed above regarding the rejection
of claim 1 over Grandmont.
The appellants argue that “there is no teaching in either
Grandmont et al. or Hoffman to make the combination suggested by
the Examiner. Rather, it appears to the applicants that the
Examiner is impermissibly using the applicants[’] disclosure as
the basis for the motivation for combining the Grandmont et al.
and Hoffman references” (brief, pages 19-20).
Grandmont discloses only a solid cylindrical heat transfer
core for transferring heat to heat conductive fins which surround
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007