Appeal No. 1998-1081
Application No. 08/462,202
asserts (Brief, pages 9 and 10) that the Examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness since none of
the references suggest any reason why they might be combined.
Further, Appellant asserts that, even if the references could
be combined, the resulting combination would not meet the
requirements of the claimed invention.
After careful review of the applied prior art in light of
the arguments of record, we are in agreement with Appellant’s
position as stated in the Brief. The distinct fluid conduit
wall structure disclosed by Molitor, which the Examiner has
suggested could be utilized in place of the grooved channel
fluid passageways in Bone, would serve no purpose in the
structure of Bone. As pointed out by Appellant, Bone’s wall
member, which is made of solid material, serves to contain the
heat transfer fluid, thereby obviating the need for a distinct
conduit wall structure. Further, we fail to see how the heat
exchange structure of Molitor, which is intended to transfer
heat between a fluid flowing through heat conductive
deformable members and a fluid flowing through a conduit
surrounded by the heat deformable members, has relevance to
the heat exchange structure of Bone which transfers heat from
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007