Appeal No. 2006-2231
Application No. 10/306,120
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 rejection for the reasons set forth in
the Answer, and we add the following for emphasis only.
There is no dispute that Singer, the primary reference,
teaches a method of adhering a conduit for transporting fluid to
a backing surface by spraying metal droplets which at least
partially encapsulate the conduit. Singer does not disclose
that the conduit is a flexible corrugated one. However, as
explained by the examiner, Widmer teaches that a flexible
corrugated conduit has the advantages of ensuring turbulent flow
which prevents a temperature gradient across the fluid within
the conduit, and providing a greater heat transfer surface area
which enhances the heat transfer rate across the conduit.
Accordingly, based on the collective teachings of Singer and
Widmer, we are convinced that the examiner has drawn the proper
legal conclusion that it would have been obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art to employ a flexible corrugated
conduit in the method of Singer for obtaining the advantages
described by Widmer. Also, from a somewhat different
perspective, we find that it would have been obvious for one of
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007