Appeal No. 1997-0854
Application No. 08/292,846
controller for controlling air flow to the air heaters and for
controlling the actuation of the reciprocatable tools.
Appellants submit at page 3 of the principal brief that
the following groups of claims stand or fall together: (1)
claims 30 and 31; (2) claims 33, 34 and 35; and (3) claims 36,
37, 38 and 39.
Appealed claims 25-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Wells in view of Loren.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions
advanced by appellants and the examiner. In so doing, we
agree with appellants that the prior art cited by the examiner
fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness for the
subject matter defined by claims 25-28. Consequently, we will
not sustain the examiner's rejection of these claims. On the
other hand, we fully concur with the examiner that the subject
matter defined by claims 29-39 would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's rejection of
claims 29-39 for essentially those reasons expressed in the
Answer.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007