Appeal No. 2005-0874
Application No. 10/320,073
Appellants argue that no reference teaches a heat exchange
arrangement between a flowing exhaust gas and a heat regulating
fluid (Brief, page 6). This argument is not persuasive since
these features are not recited in claim 22 on appeal. In other
words, properly construed claim 22 does not require heat exchange
between a flowing exhaust gas and a heat regulating fluid.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the examiner’s
rejection of claim 22, and claims 7-8 and 11-13 that stand or
fall with claim 22, under Section 103(a) over Sugimoto in view of
Kimura and Hayes.
B. The Rejection of claim 23
With regard to the rejection including claim 23, the
examiner makes the same findings from Sugimoto as previously
discussed (Answer, pages 6-7). The examiner additionally finds
that Kimura discloses use of a heat regulation flange as required
by claim 23 on appeal with a teaching to use this flange to
prevent heat conduction from the motor to the wafer in a rotary
spin coating apparatus (Answer, page 7). Accordingly, the
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in this art to use a heat regulation flange with
the apparatus of Sugimoto for the benefit taught by Kimura (id.).
We agree.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007