Appeal No. 2004-1125
Application No. 09/923,998
The appellant does not dispute the examiner’s determination
(final Office action, page 3) that Erwin describes a heat
exchanger component comprising a plurality of passages, the
surfaces of which are coated with a fluorocarbon. Rather, it is
the appellant’s principal argument that the “claimed coating
reduces oil wettability” whereas “Erwin teaches a coating that
increases oil wettability.” (Appeal brief, pages 4-5.)
The appellant’s position lacks merit.
Erwin teaches a heat exchanger for the evaporation of
aqueous solutions containing dispersed or dissolved solids in
which a heated immiscible liquid such as oil is used as a heat
transfer liquid that makes liquid/liquid contact with either the
aqueous solution or a highly dispersed mixture of the aqueous
solution in oil in a combination heating and mixing chamber
whereby a portion of the solution droplets are vaporized.
(Column 1, lines 14-27.) As pointed out by the examiner, Erwin
teaches coating the surfaces exposed to the aqueous solution
with a fluorocarbon, which the appellant describes as a
preferred material for the “low surface energy coating.”
(Erwin’s column 1, line 14 to column 2, line 18; present
specification, paragraph 22 and appealed claim 7.)
Because the coatings described in the appellant’s
specification and Erwin are identical, the prior art coating
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007