Appeal No. 1999-1899 Page 7
Application No. 08/932,090
effect, that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute
structure from Ruemelin's apparatus in Heyl so as to result in
an apparatus as claimed by appellant's claim 1 (answer, page
5). Appellant argues that the combination of Heyl and
Ruemelin does not meet the language of claim 1 that "...
ambient air will be caused to flow from outside the housing
directly into said primary and secondary inlets..." (brief,
page 13). We do not agree with the examiner or with the
appellant.
Based on our analysis and review of Heyl and claim 1, it
is our opinion that there is no difference between the
limitations of claim 1 on appeal and the teaching of Heyl.2
The examiner's conclusion that the combination of Heyl
and Ruemelin is obvious is, in our view, based soley on
hindsight.3 Nothing in Heyl or Ruemelin teaches or suggests
2 After the scope and content of the prior art are determined, the differences
between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham
v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
3 Obviousness may not be established using hindsight or in view of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007