Appeal 2007-1801
Application 10/156,917
of Fact 4-8. Thus, while Heere’s reflux condenser and the heat exchangers
of Gentry and Small may operate differently when in use, the tube
bundle/baffle arrangement used in each of these devices is still subject to the
same problems of corrosive damage and inefficient heat transfer. See
Answer 6 (“The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be used is not
germane to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself.”).
Accordingly, we find that the Examiner has established a prima facie
case of obviousness for the reasons stated in the Answer. Appellants have
failed to present persuasive arguments or evidence to overcome the
Examiner’s showing of obviousness.
The rejection of claims 14-21 and 45-50 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Heere in view of Gentry and Small is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(vi)(effective Sept.
13, 2004).
AFFIRMED
cam
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013