Appeal No. 1998-1435 Page 8
Application No. 08/132,584
The examiner fails to allege, let alone show, that Bird or
Henricks remedies the defects of Halley.
Because the examiner admits that Halley heats air that
has already been pressurized and the reference teaches heating
air that has already been compressed, we are not persuaded
that teachings from the prior art would appear to have
suggested the limitations of "heating high velocity air
flowing through the air delivery tube by heat transfer contact
with an elongated heating element disposed within the air
delivery tube; pressurizing the air distribution plenum
chamber with the heated air ...." The examiner fails to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we
reverse the rejection of claims 27-30 as obvious over Bird in
view of Halley and Henricks. Next, and last, we address the
obviousness of claims 31-36.
Obviousness of Claims 31-36
no such obligation regarding unreasonable interpretations.”
Genentech, Inc. v. Wellcome Found. Ltd., 29 F.3d 1555, 1564
n.22, 31 USPQ2d 1161, 1168 n.22 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007