Appeal No. 2001-2354
Application No. 09/186,687
The fourth rejection
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 4 since they
depend from claims the rejection of which we did not sustain
above. However, the rejection of claims 16 and 17 is sustained
since, as expressly indicated by appellants (main brief, page 4),
these claims stand or fall together with claim 15, the rejection
of which latter claim has been earlier sustained.
The fifth rejection
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 18.
Claim 7 depends from claim 1, the rejection of which we sustained
above. Further, we perceive that the applied teachings of Goetz,
Humpolik, and Del Monte would not have been suggestive of the
subject matter of claim 7. As to independent claim 18, it
addresses a heat exchange device with the feature of a support
plate adapted to serve as a header; the support plate having a
first portion adapted to receive tubes by means of compressible
seals and a second portion being adapted to receive in forced fit
manner tubes with curved connectors. It is clear to us that the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007