Appeal 2007-1801
Application 10/156,917
6) Small relates to improvements in heat transfer capabilities of a
tube bundle to be used in a shell and tube heat exchanger. Col. 1, ll.
9-11.
7) Small teaches that problems which can occur in plate-type baffle
heat exchangers relate to excess space between the tubes and the
openings in the plates through which the tubes pass. Col. 1, ll. 44-51.
8) Small discloses that heat transfer can be improved by employing
rod baffles to support the tube bundle. See col. 5, ll. 5-25.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner found that Heere discloses the invention as claimed
with the exception of a plurality of rod-type baffles for supporting heat
exchange tubes. Answer 3. The Examiner notes that Gentry and Small
disclose a plurality of rod-type baffles for supporting heat exchange tubes,
including a U-tube bundle. Answer 3. The Examiner concluded that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to have substituted or replaced Heere’s plate-type baffle with
Small or Gentry’s rod-type baffle. Answer 3. According to the Examiner,
the motivation for such modification is the reasonable expectation of
increasing heat transfer rates, reducing damages due to vibration, etc., based
on the teachings of Small and Gentry. Answer 5.
Appellants contend that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
been motivated to combine the teachings of Heere with Gentry and/or Small
because “[t]here are clear and substantial differences between the reflux
condensers disclosed in Heere and in the prior art and the heat exchangers
disclosed in Gentry and Small.” Reply 3. In particular, Appellants explain
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013