Appeal No. 1998-0863
Application 08/502,831
painted, and (b) the known use of plastic for the housing of a
heater, as exemplified by Patton WH-80, there would have been
ample suggestion and motivation for one of ordinary skill to
make such a modification.
The rejection of claim 11, and of claims 12 to 15 grouped
therewith (brief, page 6) will therefore be sustained.
Rejection (2)
Appellants argue that claim 16 distinguishes over the
applied prior art in that, inter alia, it recites (at lines 44
to 47) that the top wall of the radiant heating assembly has
ducts formed therein through which fan-forced air exits the
heater (brief, page 26). The examiner has not responded to
this argument, and we do not find any such ducts disclosed or
suggested in Krichton or in any of the four secondary
references.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claim
16, nor of dependent claims 17 to 20.
Conclusion
The examiner’s decision to reject claims 11 to 20 is
affirmed as to claims 11 to 15, and reversed as to claims 16
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007