Appeal No. 96-2457
Application 08/171,149
be found in an analogous (i.e., fan) device. Lacking any
reasonable teachings in the prior art itself which would appear
to have fairly suggested the claimed subject matter as a whole to
a person of ordinary skill in the art, or any viable line of
reasoning as to why such artisan would have otherwise found the
claimed subject matter to have been obvious in light of the
teachings of the applied references, we must refuse to sustain
the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Murphy and Kang.
The examiner's addition of the reference to Wood in the
rejection of claims 3 through 7, 13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
only compounds the problem by further relying on impermissible
hindsight to make such combination, and does nothing to supply
that which is lacking in the teachings and/or suggestions of the
basic combination of references as noted above. More
specifically, we note that the rolled-over portion of the cutoff
sheet (20) about the rod (23) in Wood, which the examiner
considers to be a "lip," is used to secure that end of the cutoff
sheet in position between the fan housing walls (11, 12). Given
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007