Appeal No. 2001-1302
Application 08/811,230
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims, to
the applied prior art reference, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determination that the examiner’s
above-noted rejection of claims 1 through 3 will not be
sustained. Our reasons for this determination follow.
In rejecting claims 1 through 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
based on Nelson, we note that the examiner has not specifically
pointed out how or why the system as disclosed in Nelson
anticipates the now claimed subject matter. Nelson makes no
comment whatsoever concerning the orientation of the vent pipe
connected to the furnace therein having a relationship to the
manner of wiring the inducer motor (61), and clearly provides no
teaching of having the second wire associated with the inducer
motor (61) connected only to the low speed terminal when the vent
pipe is installed in a vertical position or only to the high
speed terminal when the vent pipe is installed in a horizontal
orientation “such that the inducer motor operates at all times at
one speed, with the other speed not being used,” as now set forth
in claim 1 on appeal and in similar language in method claims 2
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007