Appeal No. 2004-0542
Application No. 09/486,230
Brief, last paragraph). The examiner has not explained how the
bending operation described in appellants' specification would
result in anything but the formation of continuous beads in the
longitudinal direction of the tube.
We now turn to the § 102 rejection over French. While the
examiner relies upon Figures 7, 8 and 23 of French, we agree with
appellants that the disclosure of French with respect to these
figures describes how the fins are brazed at their crossing tips
as depicted in Figures 3 and 7. The examiner has not explained,
and it is not apparent to us, how such a brazing at the crossing
tips of the fins results in the presently claimed continuous
extension of crushed, opposed beads in the longitudinal direction
of the tube. While we agree with the examiner that Figure 7 of
French depicts lines/beads "run in at least a direction which is
longitudinal to the tube" (page 4 of Answer, penultimate
sentence), we do not agree with the examiner that the crossed
portions of the line/beads form a continuous extension.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007