Appeal No. 97-1005
Application 08/262,993
that the examiner's proposed combination of Stroup and
Brockmuller is based on hindsight derived from appellant's
application. In this regard, we note that column 1, lines 51-
59, of Stroup appear to clearly teach away from employing the
type of tensile force separation proposed by the examiner in
severing of the flat heat exchange tubing therein. For these
reasons, we
will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 12 through
14 based on the teachings of Stroup and Brockmuller.
Having reviewed the patents to Hofmann and
Chamberlin also applied by the examiner, we find nothing
therein which overcomes or supplies the deficiencies of the
basic combina- tion of Stroup and Brockmuller as discussed
above. In addition, we note our agreement with appellant's
position (reply brief, pages 1-3) concerning the examiner’s
proposed modification of Brockmuller as employed in Stroup
based on the further teachings of Chamberlin. As for the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007