Appeal No. 2005-2052
Application No. 09/996,842
tubular units to enhance thermal convection of the diathermal
fluid within the tubular radiator units.
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of unpatentability:
Woolley 2,075,323 Mar. 30, 1937
De’Longhi 4,870,253 Sep. 26, 1989
Claims 1 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over De’Longhi in view of Woolley.
On page 3 of the brief, appellants group the claims
together. We therefore consider claim 1 in this appeal. See 37
CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(September 2004); formerly 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(2003). Also see Ex parte Schier, 21 USPQ2d 1016,
1018 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991).
We have carefully considered appellants’ brief1, the
examiner’s answer, and the evidence of record. This review has
led us to conclude that the examiner’s rejection is well
founded.
1 We use the Supplemental Appeal Brief filed on July 16, 2004.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007