Appeal 2007-2888
Application 11/017,602
Appellant asserts that “Sloan simply cannot be an interference fit
otherwise such an interference fit would prevent moisture condensing within
the bag 36 [an insulating element] from communicating out of the bag
through the outlet aperture 44” (Reply Br. 2; see also Appeal Br. 7-8).
We do not find this argument persuasive. Sloan describes “apertures”
connected to flow ducts that lead to the exterior space (FF 5-6). As shown
in Fig. 8 of Sloan (FF 6), the elements are arranged in a vertical series with
each connected to another. Fluid flows vertically through the bag, through
the aperture, and into the next bag (FF 5-6). The interference fit between the
lateral frame members would not obstruct the water because the water flows
through the bag and out the aperture at its bottom (as shown in the
embodiment of Fig. 8).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 1 and 17.
Claims 2 and 18 were not separately argued; consequently, they fall with
claims 1 and 17. See C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
OBVIOUSNESS
Claims 3-5 and 7-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Sloan in view of Yoerkie or Allen.
Issues on Appeal
The issues in this rejection are whether the skilled person would have
had reason to have further provided the foam portion with a) a mass barrier,
b) a mass barrier with a barium sulfate, and c) to have attached the mass
barrier to the foam and to the frame members.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013