Appeal No. 97-2642 Page 20
Application No. 08/094,461
replacing Raymond's oil heating system (i.e., the pressure
drop across the restrictor 82) with a heating system utilizing
exhaust gases. The resulting structure would have the oil
returned in a return line from the second heat exchanger
(i.e., Raymond's heat exchanger tubes 46) to the first heat
exchanger (i.e., McEachern's heat exchanger 11) and the oil
fed in a feed line from the first heat exchanger (i.e.,
McEachern's heat exchanger 11) to the second heat exchanger
(i.e., Raymond's heat exchanger tubes 46).
On page 33 of the brief, the appellant argues that the
flexible portions of the feed and return lines recited in
claim 11 is not suggested by the applied prior art. We do not
agree. Raymond teaches that flexible hoses 86, 87 transmit
the oil to the heat exchange tubes 46 and that flexible hose
49 returns the oil. It is our opinion that the combined
teachings of the applied prior art as combined above would
have suggested portions of the feed and return lines leading
from the paving machine to the floating screed be flexible as
suggested and taught by Raymond's hoses 49, 86 and 87.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007