Appeal 2007-1420
Application 10/992,431
claim. While it is accurate to state that the claim requires separate motor and
bearing cooling entrances provided by a housing as indicated at the top of
page 2 of the Reply Brief, it is fair to state as well that Jesinger clearly
teaches that this is the case.
Moreover, it is emphasized again that the claim does not exclude the
mixing of air between the two paths. In this regard, the interpretation that
we noted earlier in this opinion regarding the top portion of the motor-
cooling arrangement in figure 2 does not necessarily require the mixing
when the discharge vent 98 is considered only with respect to the inlet 91 in
parallel with the air flows around the herringbone air bearing 90 in this top
portion of the arrangement. It is thus clear that the feature recited in
dependent claim 17 is met as well by Jesinger. The Examiner’s illustration
at the top of page 5 of the Answer is consistent with our understanding of the
manner in which the reference operates in figure 2 as well as that shown at
the bottom of page 6 of the Answer.
With respect to the separate rejection of claim 2 and Appellants’
arguments at the bottom of page 7 of the principal Brief, we agree with the
Examiner’s more expansive interpretation of the rejection of this claim in the
paragraph bridging pages 5 and 6 of the Answer. On the other hand, the
context in which the showings in figures 1 and 2 of Jesinger must be
considered is that a single or common blower structure 10, which may be
separately interpreted as a housing, in addition to the housing 30 associated
with figure 2, meets the respective housing portions of dependent claim 2 in
the context of the analysis set forth earlier.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013