Appeal No. 2002-2341
Application 09/466,277
In addition, the examiner recognizes that Marks does not
disclose first and second airflow inlet guides (diverters)
coupled respectively to the first and second cardcage sides for
altering air flow through the cardcage, and relies upon Watanabe
to supply these missing elements. In the examiner’s view (final
rejection, page 6)
Watanabe et al disclose a method of cooling equipment
(20) by using two fans (11, 12). As shown in Figure 2,
baffles located between the outside filter (10) and the
fans, connected to the equipment, diverts the airflow either
in both the inlet and exit directions towards the filter.
Regarding claims 52, 44 and 46, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of
invention, to have attached first and second airflow exit
guides to the cardcage of Marks/Howrilka, in light of the
teachings of Watanabe et al, in order to control the airflow
exiting the cardcage.
Although we would agree with the examiner that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the
cardcage sides or walls (13, 14) of Marks with alignment tabs and
the end plates therein with alignment slots, in light of the
teachings of Howrilka, in order to facilitate alignment of the
various structural components before fastening them together, and
also to eliminate the need for separate fasteners like the rivets
(16) of Marks to hold the elements of the cardcage together and
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007