Appeal No. 96-3011
Application No. 08/165,313
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determination that
we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of the appealed
claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning follows.
In reviewing the teachings of Burne and Roberts, we must
agree with appellants (brief, pages 5-14) that the applied
prior art references do not teach, suggest or render obvious
the oil cooler set forth in the above enumerated claims on
appeal. Even if we were to conclude that the distillation
apparatus of Roberts would have commended itself to the
attention of one of ordinary skill in the oil cooling art
involved in this application and in Burne, we see no
reasonable teaching or suggestion in the applied references
which would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to use
the specialized dimpled heat transfer structures (e.g., 19,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007