Appeal No. 1999-0074 Application No. 08/401,347 clamping flange of the tank. In light of these deficiencies in the examiner’s evidence of obviousness, we must conclude that there is no factual basis for the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to provide a “unitary” flat torque tank plate in Jackson’s radiator assembly, as called for in the independent claims on appeal. This constitutes a first reason necessitating reversal of the examiner’s rejection. In addition, we do not consider that the compression strap arrangement 28 of Jackson comprises “a unitary, flat header torque plate extending continuously about the entire perimeter of one end of said radiator . . . in mating relationship with [the] header flange” as called for in each of claims 1 and 16. Rather, we perceive Jackson as providing a first compression strap 28 positioned along the front face of the radiator core and a second compression strap 28 positioned along the rear face of the radiator core. Likewise, we do not consider that the header flange 20 of Jackson extends “continuously about the entire perimeter of one end of . . . [the] radiator core” as called for in the independent claims on appeal, but that instead, it merely 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007