tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post3161327237623795542..comments2023-10-24T14:45:41.342+02:00Comments on K’s Law: Interpretative Spotlight: Directlyorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-20893015715075606512011-10-11T01:35:05.783+02:002011-10-11T01:35:05.783+02:00I don't see a problem with this decision. Arra...I don't see a problem with this decision. Arranged on is not the same as fixed to.Myshkinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-48543053656139766162011-10-10T18:11:23.569+02:002011-10-10T18:11:23.569+02:00I find this decision severe as the heat exchanger ...I find this decision severe as the heat exchanger of E1 - Fig1 is NOT directly arranged on the engine. The keyword is directly, not arranged.<br />Morover, the understanding of the board seems wrong to me when asserting claim1 means that there is no intermediate parts between the exchanger and the fan. It is not written that the air flow exhausted by the fan enters directly the exchanger in claim 1 (according to me).<br />I think I would have written in the same way this claim1. Maybe I would have written in the description the word "fixed" or "mounted" or "attached" when discussing claim 1, but I'm not 100% sure....<br /><br />Thanks a lot for this frightening decision!<br /><br />Could other readers tell how they would have drafted claim1?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com