Appeal No. 2001-1302
Application 08/811,230
and 3 on appeal. In this regard, nothing in Nelson discloses or
teaches that a two-speed inducer motor can be used as a single-
speed motor wherein the inducer motor speed is permanently
selected at the time of its installation based upon whether the
furnace is vented vertically or horizontally, as required in the
claims now before us on appeal.
Since the examiner has not presented a prima facie case of
anticipation, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1
through 3 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Nelson.
As for the examiner’s alternative rejection of claims 1
through 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Nelson, we must agree
with appellants’ arguments in the brief and reply brief that a
person of ordinary skill in the art reading the Nelson patent
would not find any reason or suggestion to modify the heating
system disclosed in Nelson so that the inducer motor (61) of that
system would operate solely and at all times at its lower speed
for the entire life of the furnace, as has been urged by the
examiner (answer, page 4). Like appellants, we are of the view
that the clear teaching in Nelson is away from any such
continuous derated operation of the furnace therein.
Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 will not be sustained.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007