Appeal No. 96-3771
Application 08/127,005
Next, we note that the appellant has not separately
argued the patentability of dependent claims 2-4 and 11.
Accordingly, these claims will stand or fall with
representative claim 5.
37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
We have carefully reviewed the appellant's invention as
described in the specification, the appealed claims, the prior
art applied by the examiner and the respective positions
advanced by the appellant in the supplemental brief and by the
examiner in the answer. This review leads us to conclude that
the prior art relied on by the examiner establishes the
obviousness of representative claim 5 within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we will sustain the above noted
rejection.
According to the examiner:
[i]t would have been obvious to one skilled in the
art to provide Waggoner’s air deflector with a leg
member extending an acute angle of less that 90E or
approximately 75E from the base member to deflect air
upwardly, and a lip member extending at an obtuse
angle of approximately 135E from the leg member
thereof to deflect air outwardly at the tops of the
air deflector member, and to secure the leg member
at a distance from the exterior edge of the vent
part to keep the air deflector in place as taught by
Smith.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007