Appeal No. 1998-1052
Application No. 08/683,600
failed to adduce evidence sufficient to establish obviousness
of the subject matter of claim 21. We shall therefore sustain
the standing § 103 rejection of claim 21.
Claim 22 depends from claim 21 and adds that each
discharge port of the air distribution manifold is centered
with respect to a pair of adjacent heat lamps, whereby each
pressurized air jet is directed through the longitudinal
spacing between a pair of heat lamps. Clearly, this is not
the case in Anderson, where discharge ports 76’ are aligned
directly over the respective heat lamps 12’ (see Figure 6).
Since the examiner has not explained how Anderson teaches or
suggests this claim feature, and since
it is not otherwise apparent to us how the Anderson reference
renders obvious the subject matter of claim 22, the standing
§ 103 rejection thereof shall not be sustained.
The standing § 103 rejection of dependent claims 23 and
24 shall not be sustained. These claims call for a reflector
plate disposed between the air distribution manifold and the
heat lamp assembly, with the reflector plate having multiple
air flow apertures for directing pressurized jets of air
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007