Appeal No. 96-2457
Application 08/171,149
10, filed July 10, 1995) and reply brief (Paper No. 12, filed
October 16, 1995) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants' specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
this review, we have made the determination that the examiner's
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 will not be sustained. Our
reasons follow.
Turning first to the examiner's rejection of appealed
claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 16 based on Murphy in view of
Kang, we must agree with appellants that there is no teaching,
suggestion or incentive in the applied references to justify the
examiner's selective reconstruction of the centrifugal fan of
Murphy by replacing the pivoted cutoff sheet (26) therein with a
cutoff member that is slidable along the interior surface of the
scroll housing of the fan and operable to vary the area of the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007