Appeal No. 1999-0036
Application 08/394,012
each of the tubes (10) seen in Daugirda in place of the fins thereon, so as to increase the heat transfer
surface. As for the air aspirated nozzle required in appellants’ claim 1, the examiner has taken the
position that the specific type of nozzle is considered to be a matter of design choice.
After a review of the combined teachings of Daugirda and Krieger, even if we accept the
examiner’s conclusions that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the
burner/heat exchanger of Daugirda with an air aspirated nozzle as a matter of design choice and with
fluted tubes following the broad teachings and concepts found in Krieger, we must agree with
appellants (brief, pages 6-7) that the resulting structure would not be that which is set forth in claim 1 on
appeal.
Appellants’ claim 1 specifies that the heat exchanger includes a plurality of flutes surrounding
the burner and that said flutes have an inside and outside surface area. See, for example, Figure 7A
and 7B of the application drawings. In addition, claim 1 sets forth that the burner system therein has a
water supply to supply water under pressure to the heat exchanger, and to circulate said water through
said heat exchanger. The last clause of claim 1 then specifies
“said inside area [sic, inside surface area] of said flutes being exposed to the heat
produced by said burner and said outside area [sic, outside surface area] of said flutes
being exposed to the water circulated through said heat exchanger.”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007