Appeal No. 98-2186
Application No. 08/517,946
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review we have reached the determinations
which follow.
Looking to the examiner's prior art rejection of appealed
claims 1 through 5 and 8 through 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Lestage in view of Watkins, we note
that as has been set forth on pages 2-3 appellant’s
specification, the Lestage patent discloses an air extraction
apparatus for dehumidifying air in a basement or other
enclosed area of a building. The Lestage apparatus is very
similar to that defined in independent claim 1 on appeal, with
the exception that the fan (8) of Lestage is seen to be at the
outlet end of conduit (6) instead of being located "adjacent
the bottom floor" as required in appellant’s claims on appeal.
In accordance with appellant’s drawings and the disclosure at
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007