Appeal No. 2004-1037
Application No. 09/680,387
We reverse. We agree with the Appellant, Brief page 7, that the fins (ridge
members) of McClintock serve a different purpose. The fins of McClintock function
to interlock with the rod serrations creating tension and compression forces to support
the tubes in place and prevent vibration. (Col. 2, ll. 33-36). The Examiner has not
directed us to evidence that the optimization of the height of the fins of McClintock
for preventing vibration would necessarily result in the creation of mini-vortex
generators as required by claim 11.
We also agree with Appellant that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
not have been motivated to combine the teachings of the McClintock and Pettigrew
references. (Brief, pp. 9-11). The Examiner asserts that there is no difference
between the claimed wiggle bar tube support member and the sinuous baffle disclosed
by Pettigrew. (Answer, p. 6). We do not agree. McClintock uses the serrated rods
(21) to interlock with the fins on the tubes for support and to prevent vibration. The
Examiner has not addressed whether the combination of McClintock and Pettigrew
would employ a sinuous baffle that has serrations. The Examiner also has chosen not
to address the Appellant’s argument, Brief, page 11, that if McClintock’s rods had
sinusoidal waves that the rods could not be inserted or rotated to engage with the fins
of the tubes.
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007