Appeal No. 2002-1445
Application No. 09/280,775
we offer the following. Considering, in particular, the sparse
disclosure of the Suzuki reference vis-a-vis the spacer per se,
we are of the opinion that the more appropriate assessment should
address the matter of the spacer being dielectric in an
obviousness context. Lastly, we note the examiner's assessment
that the claimed specific materials are not critical/important
(answer, page 7). However, criticality is not a requirement for
patentability.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 through 7,
9, 12 through 15, and 18 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Scanlon.
This panel of the Board discussed the plate and spacer
materials deficiency of the Suzuki document above. Scanlon
discloses the replacement of metal with materials such as carbon
in the heat exchanger art (column 1). In particular, Scanlon
teaches a heat exchanger (Fig. 1) having flat composites 30
(graphite fibers in an epoxy resin matrix) with a plurality of
bar-like gaskets 38 (no material disclosed) respectively
therebetween (column 3, lines 25 through 59). The fibers are
unidirectionally oriented (see double headed arrow 40 in Fig. 4).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007