Appeal No. 2002-2341
Application 09/466,277
to provide added flexibility in accommodating cards of differing
width (Howrilka, col. 1, lines 60-69 and col. 2, lines 18-36), we
share appellants’ view regarding the further combination of
Watanabe with the cardcage of Marks as modified by Howrilka.
More particularly, we find that although Figure 2 of
Watanabe may suggest airflow diverters or baffles adjacent each
end of the interior component (20) to be ventilated, such
diverters/baffles are located between the dust-removing filters
(10) and the outboard sides of fans (11, 12), and are not coupled
to the respective first and second cardcage sides as set forth in
claim 52 on appeal so as to alter air flow through the cardcage.
As is clear from Figures 7C and 9A of the application drawings
and the disclosure associated therewith at pages 18-20 of the
specification, the air flow diverters or guides (134-137 and 140,
142) are directly coupled to the respective first and second
sides of the cardcage to directly effect air flow through the
cardcage. This is clearly not the case in Watanabe.
Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of claims 52, 44 and 46
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marks in view
of Howrilka and Watanabe will not be sustained.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007