Appeal No. 2000-1333
Application No. 08/691,988
preventing overstressing and failure resulting from
differential thermal expansion as disclosed in Hubble”
(answer, page 4).
As pointed out by the appellants, however, the heat
exchange structures disclosed by Adrian and Hubble differ
substantially in construction. There is nothing in either
reference indicating that the heating sheet bundles 12
disclosed by Adrian, which are not spirally wound, would
unduly suffer from thermally induced stresses, much less the
particular thermally induced hoop stresses targeted by
Hubble’s spirally wound, brazed matrix. In this light, it is
apparent that the examiner has engaged in an impermissible
hindsight reconstruction of the appellants’ invention by
employing the claims as a blueprint to selectively piece
together disparate teachings in the prior art.
Consequently, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claim 1, or of claims 3 and 4 which 2
2The recitation in claim 4 that the profiled sheets
comprise vertical outer rods is inconsistent with the
underlying disclosure which indicates that these sheets and
rods are separate elements. This inconsistency is deserving
of correction in the event of further prosecution before the
examiner.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007