Appeal No. 98-2186
Application No. 08/517,946
impermissible hindsight derived solely from appellant’s own
disclosure. For that reason, the examiner’s rejection of
these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 will likewise not be
sustained.
As is apparent from the foregoing, the decision of the
examiner rejecting claims 1 through 15 of the present
application is reversed.
Pursuant to our authority under 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we
enter the following new ground of rejection against
appellant’s claims 1 through 3 and 9 through 12 on appeal.
Claims 1 through 3 and 9 through 12 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bobjer. In our
opinion, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of appellant’s invention to have
utilized the ventilation device of Bobjer on a bottom or
basement floor of a building to condition the air within an
enclosed space during the painting of said space (as generally
disclosed in Bobjer), or at any other time that an owner may
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007