Appeal No. 1999-0316
Application 08/329,124
Spethmann’s air mix control system, however, has little,
if any, relevance to the sort of ventilation system disclosed
by Hajicek. We are satisfied that the only suggestion for
combining the disparate teachings of these references in the
manner proposed by the examiner stems from hindsight knowledge
impermissibly derived from the appellants’ own disclosure. As
for claims 33 and 34, which depend from claim 32, suffice to
say that this basic flaw in the Hajicek-Spethmann combination
finds no cure in Besik’s disclosure of an air conditioning
apparatus which is reversibly operated to transfer heat and
moisture between fresh and exhaust air flows.
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. §
103 rejection of claim 32 as being unpatentable over Hajicek
in view of Spethmann or the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
of claims 33 and 34 as being unpatentable over Hajicek in view
of Spethmann and Besik.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007