Appeal No. 97-2642 Page 28
Application No. 08/094,461
We do not agree. The single serpentine heat exchanger recited
in claim 35 does not define over the two serpentine heat
exchangers on the opposed sides of the screed taught by
Raymond. Thus, the claimed single serpentine heat exchanger8
reads on one of the two serpentine heat exchangers taught by
Raymond.
For the above reasons, the examiner's rejection of claims
21, 25 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the combined
teachings of Raymond, Jeppson, McEachern and McConnell is
affirmed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1 through 8, 10 through 25 and 30 through 37 under 35
U.S.C.
8We note that we have reversed the examiner's rejection
of claim 33 above which recites that the single serpentine
heat exchanger has a plurality of rigid channels mounted on
opposed sides of the screed. Claim 35 does not recite this
same limitation.
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007