Appeal No. 96-2649
Application 08/418,875
The following rejections are entered pursuant to 37 CFR
§ 1.196(b).
Claims 1 through 3, 5, 6, 8 through 11, 13, 14, 16 through
18, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Portal applied as discussed above in connection
with the examiner’s rejection of claims 19, 20 and 28.
As indicated above, the modified Portal method would meet
all of the limitations in independent claim 1. In addition, and
notwithstanding the appellant’s arguments to the contrary (see
pages 15 and 16 in the main brief and pages 5 and 6 in the reply
brief), Portal’s Figure 1 clearly shows that the solid
protrusions or fins 2 are arranged in plural axial rows spaced
circumferentially, thereby meeting the limitations in dependent
claims 22 and 23. Furthermore, and again notwithstanding the
appellant’s arguments to the contrary (see pages 16 through 18 in
the main brief and pages 5 and 6 in the reply brief), it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a simple
matter of common sense to use a hollow element having a circular
outer configuration in transverse cross section as recited in
claims 3 and 11 in the modified Portal method to form a heat
exchange tube having a conventional circular configuration.
Finally, the appellant does not dispute that Portal teaches or
-10-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007