Appeal No. 2006-0595
Application No. 09/932,860
and the Answer, page 2, paragraph 6). We reverse the rejection
on appeal essentially for the reasons stated in the Brief, Reply
Brief, and those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
The examiner sets forth the findings of fact based on the
disclosure of Sajoto (Office action dated Jan. 10, 2005, pages
5-6). The examiner finds that Sajoto does not teach at least six
elements (id. at page 6). The examiner applies Whitney for the
teaching of a flexible wire heater device with electrical
resistance leads and thermal insulation disposed within a portion
of thermally conductive sheathing (id. at pages 6-7). The
examiner relies on Fukuda for the teaching of a gas line heating
device which includes a thermocouple positioned adjacent the gas
line heater (id. at page 7). From these findings, the examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of appellants’ invention “to replace
Sajoto’s heater with Whitney’s heater and Fukuda’s thermocouple”
by either adhering or welding Whitney’s heater to Sajoto’s
feedthrough device, thus permitting a length of Whitney’s layer
of thermal insulation to be contiguous with Sajoto’s longitudinal
body portion (id. at page 7).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007