Appeal No. 2000-1333
Application No. 08/691,988
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Adrian in view of Hubble.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Adrian in view of Hubble and Woolard.
Attention is directed to the appellants’ brief (Paper No.
21) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 22) for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner with
regard to the merits of these rejections.
DISCUSSION
Adrian, the examiner’s primary reference, discloses “a
rotary regenerative air heater or economizer which is mounted
coaxially inside a flue duct, having a stack of heater
lamellae packages which are alternatingly in contact with the
hot flue gas and with the counter-flowing cold air which is to
be heated” (column 1, lines 7 through 12). Each lamellae
package 12 constitutes a heating sheet bundle which is adapted
to be mounted in trapezoidally segmented cells of the heat
exchanger stack 1 (see Figure 2). The packages 12 essentially
consist of alternating flat and undulating panels of sheet
metal (see column 4, lines 63 through 68) held together by
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007