Appeal No. 1999-2643
Application 08/512,395
inwardly and outwardly relative to the array of heat exchange
tubes.
In rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
concludes (see pages 4 and 5 in the answer) that it would have
been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
having ordinary skill in the art to provide the admitted prior
art heat exchanger with (1) first, second and third shell
spaces and apertures of the sort recited in claim 1 in view of
Katterjohn and (2) baffle means within such shell spaces to
direct the gas streams therein in radial flow across the tube
bundle in view of Magari, all to improve the heat transfer
performance of the admitted prior art heat exchanger.
Obviousness cannot be established by combining the
teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention
absent some teaching or suggestion supporting the combination.
In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed.
Cir. 1992). In other words, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the
teachings of references can be combined only if there is some
suggestion or incentive to do so. Id.
It goes without saying that in the heat exchanger art
optimum heat transfer efficiency is usually, if not always, a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007