Appeal No. 97-4429 Page 4
Application No. 08/404,666
support of the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper
No. 12, filed April 2, 1997) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent
claims 12 and 17 as being unpatentable over Collin in view of
Smith, the examiner concluded (answer, pp. 5-6) that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ
the "condenser/reboiler heat exchanger" of Collin as the
"condenser/reboiler heat exchanger" of Smith (i.e., Smith's
condensers 20, 22) in the air separation system of Smith. We do
not agree.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007