Appeal No. 2002-1445
Application No. 09/280,775
We also note that Scanlon does not address a heat exchanger
configured for the application of a voltage thereto.
All in all, it is our opinion that the collective teachings
of the applied prior art before us simply would not have been
suggestive of the heat exchanger of appellants' claims 1, 9, and
18. Specifically, the evidence applied by the examiner lacks a
suggestion for the now claimed specific materials and, for
example, the fiber traversing relationship of electrodes and
electrically conductive fibers in carbon-carbon plates of a heat
exchanger (claim 9). As to appellants' point application of
voltage argument relative to Suzuki (brief, page 7) and the
examiner's assessment (answer, page 8), we note that the
reference document's drawings are highly schematic.
In summary, this panel of the board has not sustained any of
the rejections on appeal.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007