Ex Parte Maeda et al - Page 2




              Appeal No. 2005-2736                                                                   Παγε 2                                         
              Application No. 09/966,288                                                                                                            


                     The appellants’ invention relates to a heat exchanger which includes a fuel                                                    
              supply plate and avoiding portions which prevent liquid fuel drops from being mixed with                                              
              each other when the fuel is flown out (specification, p. 1).  A copy of the claims under                                              
              appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellants’ brief.                                                                         
                                                    THE PRIOR ART                                                                                   
                     The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                                                
              appealed claims are:                                                                                                                  
              Johnson    1,639,091   Aug. 16, 1927                                                                                                  
              Tsubouchi et al. (Tsubouchi) 6,494,169   Dec. 17, 2002                                                                                
                                                    THE REJECTION                                                                                   
                     Claims 1, 7, and 39 to 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being                                                     
              anticipated by Tsubouchi.                                                                                                             
                     Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                                                  
              the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer                                                   
              (mailed June 14, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the                                                        
              rejections, and to the brief (filed February 26, 2004) and reply brief (filed August 13,                                              
              2004) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.                                                                                     























Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007