Appeal No. 2003-0671 Page 9
Application No. 09/099,632
construct the Rosman heat exchanger in accordance with these values. The examiner
again considers that to employ a film instead of a plate would have been obvious to the
artisan.
Rosman is directed to “plate/fin-type heat exchangers” (column 1, lines 7 and 8).
In keeping with this, Rosman discloses a “basic unibody, one piece fin plate 10" which
defines a series of channels 20, and a “cover plate 15" which closes the open tops of
the channels (column 4, line 30 et seq.). Rosman teaches that “various thermally
conductive materials can be used,” such as “metals, ceramics, polymers etc.” (column
8, lines 43-46). Rosman makes no mention of utilizing a film to construct the fin plate.
We agree with the appellants that the extent of the teaching provided by Rosman to one
of ordinary skill in the art would be to form of solid rigid polymer material the fin plate
and the cover plate, which quite clearly are disclosed as being solid and rigid. As was
our opinion with regard to this issue in the other two rejections of claim 1 et al., we fail to
perceive any teaching or suggestion which would have motivated one of ordinary skill in
the art to construct the Rosman heat exchanger of polymer film. In this regard, the
examiner has not explained how this would be accomplished, and it seems to us that
such an attempt would necessitate a wholesale reconstruction of the Rosman devices,
which would be a disincentive to make the proposed changes.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007