Appeal 2006-2293
Application 10/471,932
Appellant seeks review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 28-30,
32, 33, 42-48, and 52-54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kent
in view of Siak.
The Examiner provides reasoning in support of the rejection in the
Answer (mailed February 9, 2006). Appellant presents opposing arguments
in the Appeal Brief (filed November 23, 2005) and Reply Brief (filed April
7, 2006).
FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellant asserts that heat capacity is a physical characteristic of a
component determined by the volume, density and specific heat of a
component, not simply by the material of the component (App. Br. 5), and
the Examiner does not challenge this assertion.
Kent
Kent discloses a heat exchanger having aluminum fins 34 coated with
a braze coating with zinc alloy. The zinc alloy serves as a sacrificial
corrosion material that protects the tubes. (Kent, col. 2, ll. 57-60.) Kent also
discloses a sacrificial zinc coating (47 or 47a) on the header channels 40 and
discloses the thickness of such coating in one working embodiment as 9
microns. Kent also teaches that "the thickness may be varied, preferably to a
greater amount." (Kent, col. 3, ll. 8-26.) Although Kent does not expressly
include the fin zinc coating in the discussion of coating thickness, we find
that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the thickness discussion
applicable to the fin coating, as both the fin coating and the header channel
coating are for the same purpose.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013