Appeal No. 95-4206
Application No. 07/803,465
instant claim 5. The examiner may wish to consider whether
flange 74 in Sarraf might function as a “top cover,” as per
claim 5.
We turn, finally, to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103.
We will reverse the rejection of claims 1 through 24, 26
through 33, 36, 37, and 39 through 47 under 35 U.S.C. 103
based on Sarraf, alone, and the rejection of claims 34 and 35
under 35 U.S.C. 103 based only on Sarraf and Varaiya. The
examiner’s rationale in these rejections is bottomed on
“official notice” that it is old and well known to provide
apertures in the front and back of a fan cooled housing as it
is to provide a plurality of fans in order to increase the
amount of cooling. Since these “findings” by the examiner are
reasonably challenged by appellants and the examiner has
provided no evidence, in these rejections, of that which is
contended to have been “well known,” we find that the examiner
has not presented a prima facie case of obviousness with
regard to the claimed subject matter.
With regard to the rejection of the claims under 35
U.S.C. 103, based on Sarraf or Sarraf and Varaiya, wherein
Dodson is included in order to provide evidence of that which
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007