Appeal No. 97-2642 Page 27
Application No. 08/094,461
system utilizing exhaust gases as suggested and taught by
McEachern interposed upstream of Raymond's restrictor 82, the
claimed additional heating of claim 16 and the booster heater
of claims 18 and 19 read on the heating that would take place
by the pressure drop across Raymond's restrictor 82.
Accordingly, the examiner's rejection of claims 16, 18 and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the combined teachings of
Raymond, Jeppson, McEachern and McConnell is affirmed.
With regard to claims 21, 25 and 35, we agree with the
examiner (answer, p. 9) that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to further modify Raymond's system by transferring heat
to the oil from the engine's exhaust by coiling the oil pipe
around an exhaust pipe as suggested and taught by McConnell.
We do not agree with the appellant's argument that
McConnell is non-analogous art for the reasons set forth
above. The only other argument (brief, p. 49, reply brief,
pp. 12-13) raised is that the single serpentine heat exchanger
recited in claim 35 is not suggested by the applied prior art.
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007