Appeal No. 2005-2408 Παγε 8
Application No. 09/783,548
PATE, Administrative Patent Judge, Concurring-in-Part and Dissenting-in-Part,
I respectfully dissent as to the reversal of the rejection of claim 15.
I concur with the findings of fact made by my colleagues. Daneshvar discloses a
pan or heater unit 24 for holding and heating water. The water is heated in a preferred
embodiment by an electric heater 90. Daneshvar is not restricted to an electric heater,
of course. In fact, the inventor discusses an alternative heating source using tubing and
a source of hot water. Daneshvar differs from the subject matter of claim 15 only to the
extent that Daneshvar discloses an electric or tube-supplied hot water heating means
rather than a heating means based on an exothermic chemical reaction.
Mitra discloses a different heating means. Mitra provides a source of heating
using an exothermic composition based on the oxidation of iron. In my view it would
have been obvious to substitute the exothermic heating means of Mitra for the electric
heater or hot water supply tube of Daneshvar for the self-evident advantage of making
the device usable in a location remote from an electric outlet or hot water supply. In
short, I believe it is obvious in this art to substitute one well known heat source for
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007