Appeal No. 95-4206
Application No. 07/803,465
We have considered appellants’ “means-plus-function”
argument but we do not find it persuasive because, in
accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the apertures
in the cover of Sarraf would appear to be of similar structure
and performing the same dual functions of permitting cooling
and shielding electromagnetic radiation. Appellants do not
contend that the elongated apertures shown by the references
are not equivalent to the round apertures shown in appellants'
disclosure.
With regard to claims 5 through 10, we will not sustain
the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 because,
similar to our reasoning supra with regard to the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. 102(e), we fail to find any suggestion of the
claimed “gap” in the applied references.
With regard to independent claim 11, this claim calls for
first and second cooling fans, the first being “attached” to
the memory storage disk unit and the second being “attached”
to the power supply unit. We will also sustain the rejection
of this claim under 35 U.S.C. 103 as we agree with the
examiner that Dodson’s teaching of using two cooling fans,
albeit side by side, would have suggested to the artisan that
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007