Appeal No. 97-2642 Page 19
Application No. 08/094,461
by the prior art as combined above would have been in a closed
loop.
On page 31 of the brief and page 6-7 of the reply brief,
the appellant argues that the claim 5 limitation of heating
the oil to a temperature between 250°F and 300°F is not
suggested by the applied prior art. We do not agree. Raymond
clearly teaches (column 1, lines 45-48) that an oil
temperature of about 275°F is needed to establish the desired
screed temperature of about 200°F. It is our opinion that the
combined teachings of the applied prior art as combined above
would have heated the oil to a temperature of about 275°F
especially since the heat exchange units on the screed would
not have been altered by the combined teachings of the applied
prior art.
On page 32 of the brief and page 7 of the reply brief,
the appellant argues that the return line recited in claim 10
is not suggested by the applied prior art. We do not agree.
As set forth above, it is our opinion that the combined
teachings of the applied prior art would have suggested
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007