Appeal No. 1999-1778
Application No. 08/888,365
In light of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
examiner’s
rejection of claim 1, or claims 2, 4 and 5 which depend
therefrom, as being unpatentable over Fujimoto in view of Booth.
The examiner has rejected claims 6, 7, 9-11, 13 and 14 as
being unpatentable over Fujimoto in view of Booth and Onishi,
and claim 15 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto in view of
Booth, Onishi, and Symposium. Like claim 1, each of these
claims requires the cross-sectional shapes of the convex portion
and the inner fins to be asymmetrical so that the flow
resistances are different for different flow directions of a
refrigerant through the tube. We have carefully considered the
Onishi and Symposium references additionally applied by the
examiner against these claims but find nothing therein that
makes up for the deficiencies of Fujimoto and Booth discussed
above. Therefore, we also will not sustain the examiner’s
rejections of these claims.
Claims 24 and 25 stand rejected as being unpatentable over
Fujimoto in view of Booth, Onishi, and Symposium. Appellants
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007