Appeal No. 2005-0646 Page 4
Application No. 10/278,184
Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). Appellants have
indicated that these claims all stand or fall together as a
single group except for claim 26 which stands or falls separately
[brief, page 4]. Therefore, we will consider this rejection with
respect to claims 15 and 26 only.
With respect to representative claim 15, the examiner has
indicated how he reads the claimed invention on the disclosure of
Lee [answer, page 3]. Appellants argue that claim 15 recites a
printed circuit heater whereas Lee relates to thin film resistors
rather than printed circuit heaters. Appellants also argue that
even though the resistor of Lee may produce some heat, there is
no indication that the Lee resistor can function as a heater.
Appellants argue that there is no mention of heat density in Lee,
let alone a disclosure that the heat density meets the
recitations of claim 15. Appellants argue that there is no
evidence that the Lee resistor is even capable of operating at
the claimed range of 3-600 volts. Appellants argue that the
examiner’s rejection is based on mere speculation as to whether
the Lee resistor can meet the operating requirements recited in
claim 15 [brief, pages 4-6].
The examiner responds that since all resistors produce
heat, the resistor of Lee can be considered to be a heater. The
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007