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.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007