Appeal No. 2004-0323 Page 23
Application No. 09/716,045
With regard to this difference, in applying the test for obviousness, we reach the
conclusion that it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to provide Methfessel's column of air to the bottom of
the vertical chamber via Larsen's apparatus for creating a vertically directed air flow
having a generally even, uniform flow (i.e., nonturbulent flow, laminar flow). The
motivation for this change is Larsen's teaching to avoid turbulent air flow and create the
desired laminar flow by an arrangement allowing the motor and fan to be remotely placed
from the user thereby also providing a much quieter environment than is provided in prior
art vertical configurations. Furthermore, Larsen's apparatus also allows for greater
control over the air flow permitting a generally even, uniform flow to be generated.
Lastly, the horizontal lead-in section of Larsen avoids the problems associated with the
extensive excavation required for the entirely vertically oriented tunnels of the prior art.
The appellants' arguments (brief, pp. 10-11; reply brief, pp. 2-3) regarding claim
1 are not persuasive since the applied prior art, not the use of impermissible hindsight,
is suggestive of the claimed subject matter for the rationale set forth above in our
affirmance of the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Kitchen in view of Larsen. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Methfessel in view of Larsen is
affirmed.
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007