Appeal No. 2004-1869
Application No. 09/738,591
2. Claims 5 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Bentley in view of Kaneko and further in view of McCulloch (Answer, p. 5).
3. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bentley in
view of Kaneko and further in view of Linford (Answer, pp. 5-6).
4. Claims 21 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Bentley in view of Kaneko and further in view of Hayakawa (Answer, pp. 6-7).
We affirm the decision of the Examiner with respect to all four rejections. In so doing,
we incorporate the reasoning of the Examiner provided in the Answer and add the following.
OPINION
Obviousness of Claims 1-4, 20, 22, 23, 26, and 28
The Examiner rejects claims 1-4, 20, 22, 23, 26, and 28 as obvious over Bentley in view
of Kaneko. The claims stand or fall together (Brief, p. 3). We select claim 1 to represent the
issues on appeal in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2003).
Claim 1 is directed to a method for making a film for use with a heat transfer component.
In the method, a plurality of polar particulates are applied and bonded to the surface of a film
prior to adding the film to the heat transfer component. There is no dispute that Bentley
describes adding a film to a heat transfer component as claimed. The Appellant finds that
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007