Appeal No. 96-0280
Application 08/032,241
modify housing 3 by adding a flange portion at a base portion.
Nor has any motivation been shown for modifying housing 3 to a
geometric configuration having a base portion, with a flange
located thereat.
Appellants’ claims require a stationary (claims 1-3) or
static (claim 4) housing member. We do not agree with the
examiner’s position that Stiepel’s shroud or housing 3 is
stationary with respect to fixed structure 6. This is because
shroud 3 rotates. Accordingly, there is rotational movement
between shroud 3 and fixed structure 6. Otherwise, the examiner
has provided no reason why it would have been obvious to modify
Stiepel so as to make shroud 3 stationary.
The claims also require that a covering member totally
conceal the housing member. Appellants are correct that covering
member 7
of Stiepel does not totally conceal housing member 3 because
bottom section 7b is light-transparent. The examiner has set
forth no motivation for modifying Stiepel’s bottom section so as
to totally conceal housing member 3.
In view of the discussion above, the rejection of independent
claims 1 and 4 cannot be sustained. Whereas claims 2
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007