Appeal No. 1999-0074
Application No. 08/401,347
clamping flange of the tank. In light of these deficiencies
in the examiner’s evidence of obviousness, we must conclude
that there is no factual basis for the examiner’s position
that it would have been obvious to provide a “unitary” flat
torque tank plate in Jackson’s radiator assembly, as called
for in the independent claims on appeal. This constitutes a
first reason necessitating reversal of the examiner’s
rejection.
In addition, we do not consider that the compression
strap arrangement 28 of Jackson comprises “a unitary, flat
header torque plate extending continuously about the entire
perimeter of one end of said radiator . . . in mating
relationship with [the] header flange” as called for in each
of claims 1 and 16. Rather, we perceive Jackson as providing
a first compression strap 28 positioned along the front face
of the radiator core and a second compression strap 28
positioned along the rear face of the radiator core.
Likewise, we do not consider that the header flange 20 of
Jackson extends “continuously about the entire perimeter of
one end of . . . [the] radiator core” as called for in the
independent claims on appeal, but that instead, it merely
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007