Appeal No. 2004-1125
Application No. 09/923,998
III. Claim 20: 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Erwin in View of Lowenstein
The examiner’s basic position is that Lowenstein teaches
polyetheretherketone as a coating on the surface of heat
exchangers and that its use in Erwin would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art. (Final Office action, page
4.)
We disagree. Nothing in Lowenstein suggests that
polyetheretherketone and fluorocarbon would be interchangeable
for the purpose described in Erwin.
Accordingly, we cannot affirm.
IV. Claims 1, 5, 6, 12-17, 21-27, & 29: 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) over the Admitted Prior Art in View of Ogawa
The examiner admits that the admitted prior art does not
disclose a heat exchanger component having the recited coating
but that Ogawa provides the motivation to apply a monomolecular
coating on the heat exchanger surfaces of the admitted prior art
“in order to provide a longer lasting device through the strong
adhesion to the substrate so that the cost of maintenance is
reduced.” (Final Office action, page 5.)
Again, we cannot agree with the examiner. Nothing in Ogawa
suggests the desirability of applying the here recited coating
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007