Appeal No. 1999-2456 Page 5
Application No. 08/655,649
The appellant argues that the applied prior art does not
suggest the claimed subject matter (brief, p. 3). We agree.
All the claims under appeal require "a generally planar
intake cover having a perimeter configuration substantially
the same as the intake opening [of the automobile air vent
system]". However, this limitation is not suggested by the
applied prior art. In that regard, while Heinz does teach the
use of a removable cowling cover for automobiles, Heinz does
not teach or suggest using a cowling cover having a perimeter
configuration substantially the same as the intake opening of
the automobile air vent system. In fact, Heinz specifically
teaches that his cowling cover is a size, shape and contour
for disposition over at least the cowl portion of the
automobile (see for example column 2, line 38 to column 3,
line 4, and Figure 2). It is our view that an artisan in
applying the teachings of Heintz to the admitted prior art MG
automobile would have sized the cowling cover for attachment
to the cowl, not to the size of the grill over the intake
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007