Appeal No. 1999-1778 Application No. 08/888,365 argue on page 8 of the brief that the rejection of these claims should be reversed for the reasons expressed with respect to claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-11 and 13-15. However, claims 24 and 25 do not include the limitation that the cross-sectional shapes of the convex portion and the inner fins are asymmetrical. Therefore, appellants’ argument with respect to claims 24 and 25 fails at the outset because it is predicated on limitations that do not appear in the claims. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982). Since appellants have not presented any other arguments as to why the rejection of claims 24 and 25 is improper, the rejection of claims 24 and 25 will be sustained.4 Claims 26 depends from claim 11 and stands rejected as being unpatentable over Fujimoto in view of Booth, Onishi and 4We note in passing that we are in agreement with the examiner’s bottom line conclusion that the fin height to mean inner diameter ratio limitation of claim 24, the helical angle limitation of claim 26, and the zeotropic refrigerant limitation of both claims 24 and 26, are taught or suggested by the applied prior art. For example, see (1) page 4 of the translation of Fujimoto for its teachings regarding fin height and inner diameter, (2) Booth (column 1, lines 45-53) and Onishi (column 2, lines 18-19) for their teachings regarding helical angles, and Symposium for it general disclosure regarding the use of zeotropic refrigerants. 11Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007