Appeal 2007-0142
Application 10/636,964
tips inserted into the paraffin cylindrical member create bores that are
equivalent to the claimed wear indicator and taphole (Answer 3-4).
The Appellant contends that Stahlecker does not explicitly or
inherently disclose all the elements of the claimed invention. Specifically
Appellant contends that the region that surrounds the tips (spikes) of
Stahlecker are not tapholes because tapholes do not contain metal spikes
(Br. 8).
The first issue before us is whether Applicant has shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting the claims 7, 8, 10-12, 14-18, 20-22, 24, and 25
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b). The issue turns on whether the Examiner has
established a reasonable belief that the property or characteristic recited in
the claims would have been inherent to the product of Stahlecker, and
whether the Appellant has adequately rebutted the Examiner’s position by
showing that the characteristic or property is not possessed in the cited
reference. Specifically, the issue is: Does the paraffin described in the prior
art contains voids that serve to provide a visual signal that the second end of
the paraffin has been reached? We answer this question in the affirmative.
II.
Appellant contends that Stahlecker does not suggest or provide the
motivation for producing a paraffin ring containing wear indicators/tapholes
that have different depths (Br. 11-12 ).
The Examiner contends that Stahlecker describes “that the size and
location of the tapholes are used for taking-along connection with the
paraffin ring (column 4, lines 2 – 5), and therefore discloses that the length
of the tapholes are selected depending on the desired depth of the
connection.” (Answer 5).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013