Appeal No. 98-1499
Application No. 08/392,493
Looking first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1,
27, 36, 42, 44, 46 and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Takeshita, we note that the examiner has taken
the position (answer, pages 3-4) that
Regarding claims 1 and 36, Takeshita is believed
to meet the limitations of the first embodiment,
i.e. paragraph (i). The remaining embodiments
have been excluded, since embodiments they are
recited in the alternative. Similarly regarding
claims 42 and 46, the limitations of the first
embodiment are being read, and the remaining
embodiments have been excluded.
In addition, on page 7 of the answer, the examiner has
provided the explanation that
Applicant’s [sic] discloses two distinct
subchannels in a facial surface of a heat
exchange plate, where one only has a linear path
and the other is a meandering path composed of
plural linear paths and non-linear paths.
Similarly, Takeshita discloses one subchannel
having one linear path and the other subchannel
composed of plural parallel linear paths fluidly
connected by a perpendicular linear path.
Therefore, Takeshita anticipates the claims when
read in a similar convention as applicant’s
subchannels.
Since we find that the examiner’s understanding of both
the disclosed invention and the invention as claimed (e.g., in
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007