Appeal No. 2004-0891
Application No. 09/810,539
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hamrick in view of Tucker and Uehara and
further in view of Harrelson.
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Simonelli.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Simonelli in view of Harrelson.
On page 8 of the Brief, appellant states that the claims
stand or fall together. We, therefore, consider independent
claim 1. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) and (8) (2003).
OPINION
For the reasons set forth in the answer and below, we
affirm each of the rejections.
I. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Hamrick in view of Tucker
and Uehara
Beginning on page 9 of the brief, appellant argues that
Hamrick does not suggest that the exhaust conduit can be removed
such that the air exhaust outlet vents directly externally of
the room without any external conduit. On page 12 of the brief,
appellant again argues that Hamrick is silent on any teaching or
suggestion to eliminate the exhaust conduit as required by the
claims.
Upon our review of claim 1, we observe that it recites that
“said rear wall of said housing is exposed externally and said
air exhaust outlet vents directly externally of the room without
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007