Appeal No. 98-2325
Application No. 08/546,116
rejection of claim 1 above and further in view of Cannan.
Reference is made to the examiner’s answer for the complete
details of these rejections.
With regard to claim 1, the examiner concludes in
substance that the teachings of Sakaki would have made it
obvious to provide Belley’s exhaust air muffler 18 with a foam
liner having an inner surface which is substantially flush
with the inner surfaces of the inlet and outlet ends of the
muffler. The Williams patent is also cited for its teaching of
utilizing a foam liner in an exhaust air muffler for reducing
noise caused by flow of exhaust air in a vacuum sweeper.
We have carefully considered the issues raised in this
appeal together with the examiner’s remarks and appellants’
arguments. As a result, we conclude that the § 103 rejection
of claims 5 and 6 cannot be sustained. However, we will
sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 1 through 4 and 7,
although not for all of the reasons stated by the examiner.
Considering first the § 103 rejection of claim 1, the
Belley reference discloses a central vacuum cleaner system
having a motor-driven compressor 14 in a central vacuum
chamber housing. The central housing is connected by an
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007