Appeal No. 1999-1784
Application 08/710,853
expected results. Accordingly, we also affirm the rejection4
of claim 11.
We reverse the rejection of claims 17 through 19.
Claim 17 is drawn to a method of supplying hygienic air
comprising, inter alia, coating substantially all of an
interior of an indoor commercial and residential air handler
with a high density, non-porous, highly reflective coating.
Based upon our analysis of the applied prior art, the
evidence of obviousness would have only been suggestive of
applying reflective coating about the ultraviolet device of
Pacosz to reflect ultraviolet rays and enhance radiation,
i.e., upstream of the cooling coil 19. From our vantage
4An obviousness question cannot be approached on the
basis that an artisan having ordinary skill would have known
only what they read in references, because such artisan must
be presumed to know something about the art apart from what
the references disclose. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516,
135 USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA 1962). Further, a conclusion of
obviousness may be made from common knowledge and common sense
of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any
specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. See In
re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007