Appeal No. 1999-1778
Application No. 08/888,365
increasing the bottom wall to fin wall ratio. Appellant also
correctly points out that the shape of Booth’s fins is nowhere
characterized as contributing to the split resistance of the
tube, and that the small fins of Fujimoto are not deformed to
any appreciable extent during the expansion process.3
Appellant’s arguments are well taken. From our
perspective, Booth teaches increasing the amount of wall
available between the fins (i.e., increasing the “bottom wall to
fin wall ratio”) as a way of preventing the tube from splitting
during the expansion process. It is unclear to us from Booth’s
disclosure why Booth “prefers” that the fins be asymmetrical,
but, in contrast to the examiner, we do not read Booth’s
disclosure as requiring this type of fin configuration as a
prerequisite to increasing the amount of wall available between
the fins. Accordingly, like appellants, we find no motivation,
either express or implied, within the teachings of the applied
references for modifying Fujimoto in a manner that would result
3Appellant also asserts (brief, page 6) that the shape of
the fins in Booth is believed to be for the purpose of holding
their shape, an assertion with which we do not necessarily
agree.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007