Appeal 2006-3265
Application 10/047,670
nothing in the primary references that would have logically commended
them to an inventor’s attention in considering the problem faced by
Appellants (Appeal Br. 4). Thus, according to Appellants, the Examiner has
improperly used hindsight in combining the references “simply to find the
specific structural description given for the tank and cap components in the
claims” (Appeal Br. 4). Appellants further contend the secondary references
Dalo, Ryan, and Ando teach away from their use in the coupling
arrangements of the primary references Kocher, Brogan, and Turner,
because the secondary references concern flattened tubes brazed to a header,
while the primary references teach removable couplings for round tubes
(Appeal Br. 5). Appellants additionally contend, in effect, that the structural
differences between flattened or oval tubes and round tubes are such that the
type of compression used in forming the couplings of Kocher, Brogan, and
Turner is not possible with the flat tubes of Dalo, Ryan, and Ando (Appeal
Br. 6).
Appellants are correct that none of the primary references Kocher,
Brogan, and Turner specifically addresses heat exchanger tubes. On the
other hand, there is nothing in Kocher, Brogan, and Turner that would have
discouraged one of ordinary skill in the art from utilizing the disclosed
coupling techniques to couple heat exchanger tubes to heat exchanger
structure. Further, while the Brogan technique, which involves rotation of
nut portion 14 of element 12 to urge sleeve portion 13 into constrictive
retention with the tube T (Brogan, col. 4, ll. 27-30; tube labelled “P” in the
only attached drawing), would not appear to be suitable for application to a
non-round, or flattened, tube, we find nothing in either of the coupling
techniques of Kocher and Turner which would seem to make it unsuitable
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013