Appeal 2006-2311
Application 10/676,593
Appellants separately argue claims 1, 5, 9, and 15. Accordingly, we
address the arguments regarding those claims in our opinion below.
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 102(b)/103(a) REJECTION OVER ADKINS, II
Appellants argue two distinctions with regard to claim 1. First,
Appellants argue that Adkins, II does not teach or suggest that the fan is
“disposed between the flanges” as required by claim 1 (Br. 2-3). Second,
Appellants argue that Adkins, II does not teach or suggest “that the fan
module is configured for engaging a landfill well” (Br. 2).
For the reasons discussed below, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’
arguments.
Regarding Appellants’ first argued distinction, Adkins, II discloses a
solar powered exhaust fan (12) that is enclosed in a fan housing (13) (figure
1). The Examiner contends that Adkins, II’s figure 3 shows that fan (12) is
housed within fan housing (13) such that it is between the flanges (13’ and
13”) (Answer 10). We agree with the Examiner.
Adkins, II’s figure 3, the side view of the exhaust fan, clearly shows
that the fan (12) does not extend outside of fan housing (13) or past flanges
(13’ and 13”) located at the top and bottom of the fan housing (13) (figures 2
and 3). Accordingly, we find that Adkins, II discloses Appellants’ first
argued distinction.
Regarding Appellants’ second argued distinction, we find Adkins, II
discloses a solar powered exhaust fan having the same structural features
claimed by Appellants. In fact, Appellants do not argue that Adkins, II fails
to disclose any specific structural feature of claim 1. Rather, Appellants
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013