Appeal No. 2001-0707 Page 5
Application No. 09/068,526
serpentine configuration (103) and being attached to said
straight pipe sections (203) thereof, and
(c) bending the flat serpentine configuration (103)
and wires (303) attached to it about an axis or axes
corresponding to one or more of said straight pipe
sections (203).
The teachings of the applied prior art are adequately set
forth in the brief (pp. 4-5) and the answer (pp. 3-4). We
agree with the examiner that Young teaches and/or suggests all
the limitations of claim 1 except for the step (c) (i.e.,
bending the flat serpentine configuration and wires attached
to it about an axis or axes corresponding to one or more of
said straight pipe sections). We do not agree with the
examiner that the teachings of Thomas would have made it
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified Young's method for
building a serpentine heat exchanger to arrive at the claimed
method. 2
2We note that in the rejection before us in this appeal,
the examiner determined (answer, p. 4) only that it would have
been obvious that the tubing coil of Young could be bent as
claimed rather than it would have been obvious that the tubing
coil of Young would have been bent as claimed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007