Appeal No. 2005-0941
Application 09/941,029
basic contention that just because a support is made of metal (and hence would conduct
heat) does not make it a heat-conducting support. Just as the prior panel has found, we find
that a support made of metal is inherently a heat-conducting support.
Thus, on the basis of the foregoing, we conclude that Spremulli, Emmer and Margulies
are analogous prior art and that they were properly considered by the examiner in the
obviousness rejections of claims 9 and 10 on appeal. As a further point, we note that it is
well settled that in cases involving relatively simple every-day mechanical concepts, like
those involved in the present application, it is reasonable to permit inquiry into other areas
where one of even limited technical skill would have been aware that similar problems exist.
See In re Heldt, 433 F.2d 808, 167 USPQ 676, 679 (CCPA 1970). We also note that,
contrary to appellant’s view, Emmer specifically addresses appellant’s basic problem noted
in the request for rehearing, i.e., that of providing good support for a vessel as well as good
heat transfer thereto. See, e.g., page 1, column 1, lines 21-36, of Emmer.
Accordingly, appellant’s request is granted to the extent of reconsidering the decision
mailed February 23, 2006, but is denied with respect to making any changes therein.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007