Appeal No. 1998-2376 Page 8
Application No. 08/400,325
wall 13 and oppositely disposed side walls 15 and 17." Col.
2, ll. 54-56. Accordingly, Griffin would not have suggested
extruding Lipscomb's side angle plate, integral center panel,
and cellular lattice. Furthermore, the examiner does not show
that it would be possible to extrude, as a single part, the
cellular lattice of Lipscomb. To the contrary, pulling the
"egg crates" of the lattice, which are at right angles to the
housing walls, through an extrusion die seems impossible.
Relying on Brennan only to teach "a diffuser plate 1 being
perforated across the length of the plate," (Examiner's Answer
at 5), the examiner fails to allege, let alone show, that the
reference cures the deficiency of Lipscomb and Griffin.
Because the examiner has not shown that the product in
claims 1-6 is the same as or obvious from a product of
Lipscomb, Griffin, and Brennan, we are not persuaded that
teachings from the prior art would have suggested the
limitations of "sidewall portion, central housing structure
and baffle plate being a unitary part fabricated from a single
extrusion." Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 1
and 3-4 as obvious over Lipscomb in view of Griffin and the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007