Appeal No. 2003-0669
Application 09/407,116
combining Daily’s electrodes and Onishi’s surface irregularities
for any purpose, let alone the one advanced by the examiner. In
this regard, Daily and Onishi provide no factual basis for the
examiner’s conjecture that the addition of surface irregularities
of the type disclosed by Onishi to the heat exchanger disclosed
by Daily would improve the exchanger’s heat transfer
characteristics. Moreover, Daily’s stated objective of improving
heat transfer through increased turbulence without employing
extended surface means teaches away from the proposed addition of
Onishi’s surface irregularities to Daily’s heat transfer tubes.
In this light, it is apparent that the only suggestion for
combining Daily and Onishi in the manner advanced by the examiner
stems from hindsight knowledge impermissibly derived from the
appellants’ disclosure.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1, 10, 15 and 18, and
dependent claims 2, 4 through 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19 and 20, as
being unpatentable over Daily in view of Onishi.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4
through 12, 14 through 16 and 18 through 20 is reversed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007