Appeal No. 2003-0669
Application 09/407,116
THE REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 4 through 12, 14 through 16 and 18 through 20
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Daily in view of Onishi.
Attention is directed to the appellants’ main and reply
briefs (Paper Nos. 14 and 18) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 16) for the respective positions of the appellants and
examiner regarding the merits of this rejection.2
DISCUSSION
Daily, the examiner’s primary reference, discloses a heat
exchanger having the twin benefits of high heat transfer and low
fluid flow resistance. The background discussion in the
reference indicates that it is known to place various extended
surface forms along the walls of a heat exchange passageway to
disrupt laminar flow and create a degree of turbulence that
enhances heat transfer. This practice, however, suffers the
disadvantage of mechanically increasing the resistance to fluid
flow through the passageway (see column 1, lines 30 through 37).
2 The appellants’ treatment of claims 17 and 21 in the
“Grouping of Claims” section of the main brief (see page 6) is
inconsistent with their status as a withdrawn claim and an
unentered claim, respectively. This Board has no authority to
reinstate and address claim 17 as requested by the appellants
(see page 5 in the reply brief).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007