Appeal 2007-0102
Application 10/338,988
length of the projections is approximately equal to the length of the lamella
element.” We appreciate that Figure 2 of Kawate shows several projections
along the forward and rearward edges of the terminal plates or radiator
sheets and that the individual lengths for each of the individual projections is
less than the length of the heat transfer member or lamella element.
However, the cumulative length of the projections at the respective forward
and rearward edges is equal to the length of the heat transfer member or
lamella element as clearly shown in Figure 2. Significantly, the language of
claim 1 encompasses plural projections along each edge wherein the first
length comprises the cumulative lengths of these plural projections as shown
in Kawate’s Figure 2. For analogous reasons, we are unpersuaded by the
Appellant’s argument that claim 3 distinguishes over Kawate via the
recitation “wherein the first length of the projections is equal to the
respective edge length.”
Finally, we are unconvinced by the Appellant’s contention that the
Kawate patent contains no teaching or suggestion of the claim 16 steps
“forming a slightly opened U-sheet by folding the projections; and inserting
said at least one lamella element into the U-like sheet.” According to the
Appellant: “The projections of Kawate . . . are bent alternately slightly up or
down after assembly of this heater module. See Kawate, col. 5, lines 1-5.”
(Br. 12-13). However, Kawate’s disclosure at lines 1-5 in column 5 does not
teach that the projections are bent “after assembly” (id., emphasis added).
Instead, Kawate is silent as to whether the projections are bent before or
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013