Appeal No. 2004-1125
Application No. 09/923,998
claim will necessarily encompass the subject matter of a
dependent claim.
As to separately argued claim 8, the appellant argues that
Erwin does not disclose that the fluorocarbon coating is
“monomolecular.” (Appeal brief, page 5.) This argument is not
persuasive, because the appellant proffers no objective evidence
to establish that a “monomolecular” coating, as described in the
specification in paragraph 19, is any different in terms of
structure from Erwin’s coating having a thickness of 0.5 mil to
2 mils. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966
(Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430,
433-34 (CCPA 1977).
As to separately argued claim 28, the appellant urges that
Erwin does not disclose oil droplets on the surfaces of the flow
passages. (Appeal brief, page 5.) The appealed claim, however,
is directed to a heat exchanger component that does not
positively recite oil as part of the heat exchanger component.
Because Erwin’s heat exchanger and the appellant’s heat
exchanger component are structurally identical, oil droplets
would necessarily form in Erwin’s heat exchanger when it is
subjected to the same conditions described in the present
specification.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007