Appeal No. 2004-0323 Page 17
Application No. 09/716,045
for an apparatus that can redirect air flow in the above-noted manners in an
efficient manner while maintaining relatively high energy ratios. [Emphasis ours]
Larsen further teaches (column 3, lines 34-45) that:
The present invention further provides a wind tunnel having a horizontal
lead-in with an exit which is normal to the lead-in. This arrangement allows the
motor and fan to be remotely placed from the user, and provides a much quieter
environment than is provided in prior art vertical configurations. Furthermore, the
horizontal section also allows for greater control over the air flow. Thus a
generally even, uniform flow may be generated. Also, the horizontal lead-in
section of the present invention avoids the problems associated with the
extensive excavation required for the entirely vertically oriented tunnels of the
prior art.
After the scope and content of the prior art are determined, the differences
between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
Based on our analysis and review of Kitchen and claims 1 and 4, it is our opinion
that the only difference is the limitation that "said column of air moves in laminar flow in
at least an upstream portion of said column of air."
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007