Appeal No. 2003-0671 Page 10
Application No. 09/099,632
Further consideration of the teachings of Bae, which was applied for teaching the
claimed aspect ratio and hydraulic radius, fails to alleviate the defect in the rejection
regarding the use of film instead of the solid components disclosed in Rosman.
We conclude that these references fail to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with regard to the subject matter of claim 1, and this rejection cannot be
sustained. Nor can we sustain the rejections of claims 2-5, 9, 10, 12-23, 31, 32 and 34,
which were on the same basis.
Rejection (4)
Claim 14, which depends from claim claims 12 and 9, and claim 24, which
depends from claim 21 through claim 22, stand rejected as being unpatentable over
Rosman in view of Bae, taken further with Schubert. Claim 14 adds the limitation that
the flow channels of adjacent heat exchange layers are aligned substantially
perpendicular to each other. Claim 24 adds the additional step of spacing the cover of
one layer from that of the adjacent media. Schubert was applied to the combination of
references for teaching these features. Be that as it may, Schubert does not overcome
the deficiency in Rosman and Bae regarding the substitution of film for solid structure,
and this rejection will not be sustained.
CONCLUSION
None of the rejections are sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007