Appeal No. 96-2649
Application 08/418,875
extrusion hollowing step and a cutting step in order to form a
heat exchange manifold of the sort disclosed by Clausen without
the necessity of Clausen’s cold forming pressing step. Thus, the
appellant’s contention that this proposed combination of
references is based on impermissible hindsight (see pages 24
through 26 in the main brief and pages 11 and 12 in the reply
brief) is not convincing.
As a final matter, we would note that the arguments in the
main and reply briefs that the applied prior art would not have
suggested the subject matter recited in claims 4, 7, 12 and 15
are persuasive.
In summary:
a) the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through
20 and 22 through 28 is affirmed with respect to claims 19, 20
and 28, and reversed with respect to claims 1 through 18 and 22
through 27; and
b) new rejections of claims 1 through 3, 5, 6, 8 through 11,
13, 14, 16 through 18, and 22 through 27 are entered pursuant to
37 CFR § 1.196(b).
In addition to affirming the examiner’s rejection of one or
more claims, this decision contains new grounds of rejection
pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)(amended effective Dec. 1, 1997, by
-12-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007