Appeal No. 2005-2546
Application No. 09/862,910
As for the separately argued claim 13 requirement of using a
brazed joint to connect the coil to a wall portion of the
assembly, we agree with the examiner that it would have been
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the well-
known techniques of brazing or soldering to mechanically fasten
the coils. While appellant cites "Manufacturing Engineering and
Technology 886-87, 891-92 (Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. 1989)"
for establishing a distinction between brazing and soldering
(different filler metals are used), we find that the reference
underscores the obviousness of employing brazing to mechanically
fasten the coils. We agree with the examiner that the soldering
disclosed by Schade would have suggested brazing to one of
ordinary skill in the art, and appellant has not advanced any
argument which details why one of ordinary skill in the art would
not have considered brazing the cooling coil as a suitable
alternative to soldering the coil.
As noted above, appellant bases no argument upon objective
evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, which
would serve to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness
established by the examiner.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007