Appeal No. 98-0605
Application 08/383,191
If the artisan were to "take away" the conduits of Whitman as
the examiner suggests, a modification of Whitman's apparatus
and method would result. Thus, Whitman cannot be considered
to either explicitly or inherently disclose such an
arrangement.
As to the examiner's reliance upon Fig. 3 of Whitman, even if
we were to agree with the examiner that substantially all of
the quantity of air passes directly into the roof system at a
location immediately adjacent either "the exhaust port seal"
(claim 1), "the housing seal" (claim 16) or the "the area from
which insulation was removed" (claim 27), Fig. 3 plainly shows
conduits 400 extending into the roof system. Thus, Whitman
cannot be considered to teach a method and apparatus which are
"substantially free of conduits internal to the roof system"
as claimed.
Since each and every feature set forth in independent
claims 1, 16 and 27 cannot be found either explicitly or
inherently in Whitman, we will not sustain the rejection of
claims 1-3, 5,
7-10, 16, 19, 20 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on this
reference.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007