Appeal No. 2005-0874
Application No. 10/320,073
openings (Brief, page 4, citing Figure 2; Reply Brief, page 3).
These arguments are not persuasive. The air supply conduit inlet
30a of Sugimoto is not evidence of a closed system since it is
identical to or similar to appellants’ side entry gas intake port
53 (see Figure 4). Similarly, the “small nature” of the conduit
openings has not been shown by appellants to evince a “closed”
system. The damper 40 of Sugimoto is used to adjust the velocity
and quantity of air flow F (col. 5, ll. 45-47). However,
appellants have not established that use of a damper requires a
“closed” system. See In re Scarborough, 500 F.2d 560, 566, 182
USPQ 298, 302 (CCPA 1974)(generally held that attorney argument
is insufficient to take the place of evidence or expert
testimony).
Appellants argue that air flow adjusting unit 50 of Sugimoto
does not meet the claimed limitation that the heat regulating
element is arranged “about” the rotary spindle (Brief, page 5).
This argument is not well taken since the unit 50 of Sugimoto is
only the “fluid source” and the actual heat regulating element
taught by Sugimoto includes the fluid source, the annular gas
exhaust zone 30, the small opening 30b, the air supply conduit
inlet 30a, all surrounding the rotary spindle (the hollow rotary
shaft 1a; see Figures 2 and 5).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007