Appeal No. 2006-1798
Application No. 09/966,413
embodiments of Pappas have a plate or sheet attached to the bottom of the candle,
except for figures 13 and 14, and that neither of these has a wick support attached
to the plate. It is argued (id.) that there is no reason apparent from Pappas to
remove the pedestal of figure 13 but keep the rest of the plate part 114 and to move
the wick support down and attach it to the plate 114. Appellant adds (brief, page
8) that in figure 13 of Pappas, the pedestal is integral with the plate. It is further
asserted (id.) that
A skilled person who wanted to use a taller wick support instead
of a pedestal would not modify the Fig. 13 structure to do so.
That person would do what the Pappas reference itself shows for
a freestanding candle. That person would do what is shown in
Figs. 9 and 10 of the Pappas reference. No plate would be used
if the tall wick support were used because a plate would not be
needed.
Appellant (brief, page 9) disputes the Examiner's assertion that the plate serves to
prevent fuel from flowing out from under the candle because Pappas discloses that
the plate can be made from a combustible material such as wax. Appellant adds
(id.) that "[o]bviously, if it is wax, it was not intended to prevent molten fuel flow
out from the bottom of the candle." Appellant adds that the unmelted layer
prevents flow out of the bottom. That is why no plate is needed when the high
wick holder is used. Appellant additionally argues (brief, pages 11 and 12) that
the prior art does not motivate attaching a wick support to a plate and attaching that
plate to the bottom of a freestanding candle.
The examiner responds (answer, page 6) that in Pappas, the disclosure that
the sheet or plate may be non-combustable (col. 5, lines 50-51) shows flame
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013