Appeal No. 1999-1778
Application No. 08/888,365
2) claims 6, 7, 9-11, 13 and 14, unpatentable over Fujimoto
in view of Booth and Onishi;
3) claims 15, 24 and 25, unpatentable over Fujimoto in view
of Booth, Onishi, and Symposium;
4) claim 26, unpatentable over Fujimoto in view of Booth,
Onishi, and Han; and
5) claims 27 and 28, unpatentable over Fujimoto in view of
Booth, Onishi, Symposium and Han.
The rejections are explained in the examiner’s answer
(Paper No. 20, mailed September 29, 1998).
The opposing viewpoints of appellants are set forth in the
brief (Paper No. 19, filed July 2, 1998).
Opinion
With reference to appellants’ Figure 10, independent claim
1 is directed to a heat exchanger tube configured to have
an inner surface having a convex portion [7]
having a tip which has a predetermined area, and a
plurality of inner fins [9] each having a tip, the
area of the tip of the convex portion being larger
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007