Appeal No. 2003-0094 Page 2
Application No. 08/995,786
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to an environmental control system. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 21,
which has been reproduced below.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Singleton 2,409,159 Oct. 8, 1946
Endres 3,241,316 Mar. 22, 1966
Hendriks et al. (Hendriks) 5,319,925 Jun. 14, 1994
Wolfe et al. (Wolfe) 5,678,647 Oct. 21, 1997
Claims 21-23, 25 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Singleton in view of either Wolfe or Hendriks.
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Singleton in view of either Wolfe or Hendriks, taken further in view of Endres.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 24) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to the Brief (Paper No. 23) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 25) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007