Appeal No. 2001-0007
Application No. 08/956,974
We agree with the appellants’ argument (brief, pages
5 and 6) that Donahoe merely discloses (Figure 9) a cooling
fan 128 located inside housing 114 of a docking station to
pull ambient air 130 into the housing via inlet 132 to
thereby create a flow of air past heat sink member 126, and
that the combined teachings of the references “would prevent
the cooling air from the portable computer [disclosed by
Cheng] from flowing into and . . . out the exhaust hole 424
of the docking station.” Since Cheng is concerned with
pulling air out of the portable computer, and Donahoe is
concerned with blowing air1 past the cooling fins of the
heat sink located on the portable computer, we additionally
agree with the appellants’ argument (brief, page 6) that
“there is no ‘objective reason’ to combine the teachings of
the references.” Thus, the obviousness rejection of claims
1 through 13 and 15 through 17 is reversed.
1 An exhaust fan in the ductwork leading from a stove is a
better example of the type of fan needed to assist the flow of
hot air from the docking station disclosed by Cheng.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007