Appeal No. 1996-3042
Application 08/293,153
and 184, to be the most probable flow path. See id.
The examiner has not backed up his assertion of
nonenablement with acceptable evidence or reasoning. Instead,
the examiner provides mere speculation that the air may flow
along a path which is different than that shown in appellants’
figure 2. Furthermore, even if the flow path proposed by the
examiner and shown in appendix B of the answer is correct, the
examiner has provided no technical reasoning as to why the
turbulence shown in that figure would not be great enough to
cause the air to pass at least one of the light bulbs twice.
Accordingly, we conclude that the examiner has not
carried his burden of establishing a prima facie case of lack
of
enablement. Consequently, the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, is reversed.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The examiner argues that in figure 2 of Sievers, the air
flows past the first light bulb in section 26a then reflects
off the top wall (42) and passes the second light bulb in
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007