Appeal No. 2003-0671 Page 8
Application No. 09/099,632
Claims 1, 21-23, 31, 32 and 34 stand rejected as being obvious in view of the
teachings of Bae. As was the case with the rejection based upon Phillips, the examiner
admits that Bae fails to disclose or teach that the first layer is a polymeric film, and then
takes the position that the use of polymer material, as well as its use as a film, would
have been obvious matters of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art (Answer,
page 5).
Bae is directed to a fin-type heat exchanger in which the components are made
of metal, such as aluminum and copper (column 4, lines 50-51 and 60). There is no
teaching in Bae that the components are in the form of films, and from the drawings it
would appear they are of substantially rigid metal (see, for example, Figure 3). This
rejection cannot be sustained for the same reasons as were propounded above with
regard to the first rejection. Bae does not establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with regard to independent apparatus claim 1 and dependent claims 31, 32 and 34, or
with regard to independent method claim 21 and dependent claims 22 and 23.
Rejection (3)
The examiner here rejects claims 1-5, 9, 10, 12-23, 31, 32 and 34 as being
unpatentable over Rosman in view of Bae. It is the examiner’s view that Rosman
discloses all of the subject matter of claim 1 except for the film material and the specific
hydraulic radius and aspect ratio. However, the examiner takes the position that the
hydraulic radius and aspect ratio are taught by Bae and it would have been obvious to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007