Appeal 2007-2893 Application 10/818,885 Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Proctor and Park. Proctor teaches a device for transferring heat through a double walled container (Proctor, title and abstract). Proctor’s container “may be used with a liquid or solid held in any type or size container and is useable in the food serving field in general. The present invention can be used with cafeteria serving pans and coffee storage pots which store coffee made in large urns” (Proctor, col. 4, ll. 62-66). Proctor’s “container includes an outer wall adapted to be heated by a heating source and an inner wall secured to the outer wall. A sealed cavity is formed between the inner and outer walls. A heat transfer liquid is located in the sealed cavity” (Proctor, col. 2, ll. 24-27). In addition, Proctor teaches that “[t]he heat-transfer liquid substantially fills the sealed cavity and preferably is an oil” (Proctor, col. 2, ll. 33-34). More specifically, Proctor teaches that the heat-transfer liquid does not completely fill the space defined between the inner and outer walls (Proctor, col. 3, ll. 15-18), but instead is advantageously heated prior to sealing the liquid between the two walls to create a vacuum as the liquid cools within the sealed device (Proctor, col. 4, ll. 58-61). According to Proctor, “[t]he heat-transfer liquid of the present invention may be any of various heat-transfer liquids known in the art” (Proctor, col. 4, ll. 8-9). The double-walled enclosure may be made of, inter alia, stainless steel (Proctor, col. 3, ll. 60-63). 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013