Appeal No. 1998-1052
Application No. 08/683,600
Figure 1 and column 3, lines 32-36). In our view, this
construction responds to the claim language calling for a
radiant heat assembly “including multiple [radiant] heat
lamps” supported
intermediate the travel path and the air distribution
manifold,
as called for in claim 21. Thus, Anderson appears to be
sufficient to establish obviousness within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. § 103 of the claimed subject matter.
Appellants argue that claim 21 “recites a radiant heat
lamp assembly supported intermediate the travel path and the
air distribution manifold. In Anderson, the lamps 12’ are
spaced further apart from the web than from the holes 35’”
(brief, page 8). This argument appears to misapprehend the
examiner’s reading of the claim language on Anderson.
Although appellants seem to be of the view that the examiner
considers holes 35’ of Anderson as corresponding to the
multiple discharge ports of the air distribution manifold, it
is clear that the examiner reads this claim limitation on the
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007