Appeal No. 98-0330
Application 08/256,949
therein.3
After fully considering the record in light of the
arguments presented in appellants' brief and the examiner's
answer, we
conclude that the appealed claims are patentable over the
prior art applied in the first rejection.
We note initially that, as pointed out by appellants on
page 10 of their brief, neither Pearson, Meakin nor "Schneider
discloses or suggests an electrically powered cooling fan (as
recited in claim 21) or electrically energizable cooling means
(as recited in claim 26). The rejection of claims 21, 22 and
26 therefor cannot be sustained.
Turning to independent claims 14 and 24, we agree with
appellants that even if the references were combined, they
would not meet the claimed structure. Meakin discloses a
connector for fluid lines which the block 6 containing the
sockets 5 may be attached to a fix member, such as a panel or
bulkhead (col. 4, lines 44 to 48), while the block 1
Since appellants are no longer claiming non-return valves, Schneider3
would appear to be superfluous, but we have still considered it in reaching
our decision herein.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007