Appeal No. 2006-1951 Παγε 13
Application No. 10/392,140
§ 102(e). The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is
sustained, along with the rejection of claims 11 and 13, which
fall with claim 10.
We turn next to the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wenning in view of Just.
The examiner’s position (answer, page 3) is that Just
teaches welding abutting ends of an appliance. The examiner
asserts (id.) that “[t]o provide for such a joining scheme for
the edges of Wenning et al would have been obvious as same is
taught in a similar art device.” Appellants assert (brief, page
6) that Wenning specifically teaches away from using a butt weld
because “if individual elements are butt connected to one
another, it is not possible to entirely exclude the possibility
of leaks occurring which adversely affect the vacuum insulation,
(column 1, lines 45 to 49).” Appellants add (id.) that in
Wenning, cover 21 is put into place after cover 15 has been put
into place, and that butt welding shell wall 23 to tubular
element 19 could damage thermal insulation 24 that is pressed
into the cover.
We note at the outset that claim 12 does not recite butt
welding. In addition, we disagree with appellants that Wenning
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007