Appeal No. 2004-2159
Application No. 09/819,943
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that Petersen describes the systems of claims 1 and
11 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner's rejections for essentially those reasons
expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
There is no dispute that Petersen, like appellants,
describes a system for detecting the level of liquid in a vessel,
which system includes a substrate 30 mounted on a heater and an
elongated temperature-dependent resistance sensor 34. A
principal contention of appellants is that because Petersen
discloses that rod 30 is composed of insulating material, the
reference does not describe a "thermally conductive substrate,"
as presently claimed. However, as explained by the examiner and
acknowledged by appellants, Petersen expressly discloses that
"[t]he heating effect across the rod is very good because of the
small thickness of material between the two grooves 31 and 32"
(column 4, lines 34-36). Accordingly, although the rod of
Petersen is made of insulating material, its configuration is
such that it effects heat-transfer and, therefore, meets the
requirement of the broadly claimed "thermally conductive
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007