Appeal No. 1998-1052
Application No. 08/683,600
lie below the level of the heat lamp assembly. More
importantly, the holes 35’ of Anderson’s reflector clearly are
not oriented for directing jets of pressurized air through the
heat lamp assembly 12’ because Anderson’s holes 35’ are
located below the heat lamps. Therefore, even if we were to
agree with the examiner that it would have been obvious to
modify Anderson in the manner proposed, the subject matter of 3
claim 1 would not result. It follows that the standing
rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Anderson is
not sustainable.
We reach an opposite conclusion with respect to the
standing § 103 rejection of claim 21. At the outset, we
observe that claim 21 is broader than claim 1 in the sense
that it is silent as to the presence or absence of a reflector
plate. Thus, claim 21 does not require any reflector plate
whatsoever, much less a reflector plate that (1) is disposed
intermediate the air distribution manifold and the heat lamp
assembly, or (2) includes air flow apertures for directing
jets of pressurized air through the heat lamp assembly.
3It is the examiner’s position that Anderson does not
disclose a heat lamp assembly including multiple heat lamps,
but that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to so modify Anderson.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007