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. 10Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007