Appeal No. 2004-0616
Application 09/692,982
matter appears to us to be misplaced, since those portions of the
Ripka patent refer to and show configurations for more than one
flow passage, i.e., for flow passages (102) and (104), and the
second curved portion (105). As a further point, while it may be
true that there exists a transition region in the heat exchanger
of Ripka that has some length, an average hydraulic diameter, a
cross-sectional area of the flow passage, and a given wetted
perimeter, we are at a loss to understand exactly what
“relationship” (answer, page 5) the examiner thinks such
transition region satisfies or is defined by, since at that point
in the examiner’s statement of the basis for the rejection, the
examiner has merely used “...” to represent the relationship. As
for the examiner’s further positions that
[i]t would have been an obvious matter of
design choice to modify Ripka to provide the
transition length is further defined by the
following relationship 2.6ŠL/DhaŠ6.1, 2
inchesŠLŠ8 inches, 3 inchesŠLŠ7 inches,
1.7ŠL/DhaŠ7.0, since applicant has not
disclosed that the specified length solves
any stated probem in a new or unexpected way
or is for any particular purpose which is
unobvious to one of ordinary skill and it
appears that the claimed feature does not
distinguish the invention over similar
features in the prior art, since the length
of Ripka will perform the invention as
claimed by the applicant. It would have been
an obvious matter of design choice to modify
Ripka to provide one form of said flow path
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007