Appeal No. 2001-1418
Application 08/022,822
In the present case, the paragraph bridging pages 6 and 7 in
the appellant’s original specification sets forth in general
terms that “the undulations each [have] a width which is selected
to shrink, upon pressurization of the heat exchange structure
with fluid, to the same degree that the liquid conducting
channels on the other side of the manifold shrink in width.”
Pages 16 and 17 in the original specification describe in
considerable detail an example of this construction. The
examiner has not cogently explained, nor is it apparent, why such
disclosure of what is relatively simple and straightforward
subject matter would not have enabled a person of ordinary skill
in the art to make and use the heat exchange structures
respectively recited in claims 39 and 51, i.e., a structure
having “an undulating wall which is oriented and dimensioned to
decrease in dimension to the same degree that the width of the
channels decreases upon pressurization of the structure” (claim
39), and a structure having “an undulating line [forming] a
chamber which communicates with the channel and also inflates and
decreases in lateral dimension upon pressurization, the
undulating line being oriented and dimensioned to make the
decreases in lateral dimension substantially equal in the channel
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007