Ex Parte KATO et al - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2004-0542                                                        
          Application No. 09/486,230                                                  


               a plurality of beads provided in the flat inner surface of             
          the wall, each of the beads extending continuously in a                     
          longitudinal direction of the tube and having a top brazed with a           
          top of an opposed bead, the tops of the beads being crushed                 
          against each other such that the crushed tops successively extend           
          in the longitudinal direction, thereby enlarging a brazed area              
          between the tops of the beads.                                              
               In the rejection of the appealed claim, the examiner relies            
          upon the following reference:                                               
          French                      3,750,709                Aug. 7, 1973           
               Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a tube for a              
          heat exchanger comprising a plurality of beads on the inner                 
          surface of the wall that are crushed against each other.  The               
          crushed tops of the beads extend continuously in the longitudinal           
          direction of the tube.  According to appellants, the brazed area            
          of the tube "is long as well as enlarged, resulting in the firm             
          brazing between the beads" (page 4 of principal brief, first                
          paragraph).                                                                 
               Appealed claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,                
          first paragraph, description requirement.  Claim 8 also stands              
          rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by French.           
               Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments                   
          presented on appeal, we will not sustain the examiner's                     
          rejections.                                                                 



                                         -2-                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007