Appeal No. 1999-1784
Application 08/710,853
point, absent appellant’s own teaching, the applied references
themselves would not have been suggestive of coating
“substantially all of an interior of an indoor commercial and
residential air handler”, as set forth in claim 17. For the
above reasons, it follows that the rejection of claim 17, as
well as of claims 18 and 19 dependent therefrom, must be
reversed.
This panel of the board has, of course, fully considered
each of the arguments advanced by appellant in the main and
reply briefs. However, for the reasons given above and below,
the arguments fail to convince us that claims 10 and 11 are
patentable. We disagree with appellant’s view that Pacosz is
not a relevant reference (reply brief, page 1). First, this
document, akin to appellant’s air handler (Fig. 2), provides a
housing for a filter, an ultraviolet device, a cooling coil, a
drain pan, and a fan. Second, it appears to us that Pacosz is
comparable to the prior art referenced by appellant in the
specification (page 3) as “a proposed solution” to the
moisture-mold growth problem in air handling systems. We are
also not in accord with the advocated view that Berlant
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007