Appeal No. 2004-0540 Page 3
Application No. 09/601,237
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim pending in this application, recites a flat tube
formed by a strip of sheet metal folded so as to define a peripheral wall and an interior
spacer mechanically reinforcing the tube and dividing the interior thereof into two
longitudinal flow channels which are open at at least one first end of the tube, the tube
including a body with a substantially constant elongate cross section and at least one
head region extending between the body and the at least one first end, wherein the
peripheral wall, but not the spacer, is deformed in such a way as to dilate the channels
in the width direction of the cross section and to shrink them toward the spacer in the
length direction of the cross section, wherein the spacer is formed by two marginal
zones of the strip which are brazed mutually face-to-face continuously along their entire
length.
Each of the primary references, Potier (note Figures 5 and 6) and Le Gauyer
‘832 (note Figure 2), relied upon by the examiner discloses a heat exchanger
comprising two rows of heat exchanger tubes. Like the tube recited in appellant’s claim
1, each of the tubes of Potier and Le Gauyer ‘832 has a body section of substantially
constant cross section and a head region which is dilated in the width dimension and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007