Appeal No. 1999-0036
Application 08/394,012
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper No. 12, mailed May 16, 1997) and the
examiner's answer (Paper No. 20, mailed May 27, 1998) for the reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 19, filed February 23, 1998) for the arguments thereagainst.
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 determinations
which follow.
Looking first at the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we note,
with respect to independent claim 1, that the examiner has taken the position that Daugirda discloses
the claimed subject matter except for the use of an air aspirated nozzle and the use of flutes on the heat
exchanger. The examiner notes that Krieger discloses the use of flutes on the surface of a heat
exchanger (14) to form a larger heat transfer surface. From the collective teachings of Daugirda and
Krieger, the examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify the structure of Daugirda to incorporate a fluted surface to the heat exchange structure, i.e., to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007