Appeal No. 1998-3168
Application No. 08/420,730
Consequently, we find that the Declaration is of little
probative value in rebutting the evidence of obviousness
presented by the examiner.
As for the examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 5-10, 17-
19 and 27 over the additional teaching of Schlichtig, we agree
with the examiner that it would have been prima facie obvious
for one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the claimed
inductor to improve the heat transfer efficiency in the heat
exchanger.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons
well-stated by the examiner, the examiner's decision rejecting
the appealed claims is affirmed.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007