Appeal No. 2005-2546
Application No. 09/862,910
Appealed claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the admitted prior art, as depicted in
appellant's Figure 1, in view of Litton. Claims 7, 9 and 13
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the admitted prior art in view of Litton and Schade.
In accordance with the grouping of claims set forth at
page 5 of the principal brief, claims 7, 9 and 10 stand or fall
together, whereas claim 13 is separately argued.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellant's arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
§ 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner's rejections for the reasons set forth in
the Answer, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
We consider first the examiner's § 103 rejection of claim 10
over the admitted prior art in view of Litton. Since Litton
discloses embodiments for a heat exchanger including both a
cooling jacket of the type used in the admitted prior art, and a
helical cooling coil 34 like appellant's, we fully concur with
the examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
found it obvious to substitute the claimed helical cooling coil
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007