Appeal No. 2004-0891
Application No. 09/810,539
vents directly externally of the room. Likewise, in Hamrick,
air is exhausted through tubular air exhaust fitting 116 to the
atmosphere in a corresponding room. See column 9, lines 15-30
of Hamrick. Furthermore, as pointed out by the examiner on page
7 of the answer, Hamrick recognizes the desirability of
exhausting the air externally of the building or to a
noninhabited portion of the building to prevent dust or the like
from being returned back into the cleaned area of the building.
See col. 4, lines 3-8 of Hamrick.
Also, as pointed out by the examiner, Tucker recognizes the
disadvantages associated with the use of conduits in the wall
because of costly services of carpenters to prepare passages for
such conduits and plumbers to install them. The examiner also
points out that Uehara teaches how to vent air from the inside
of a room to an area exterior to the room. Each of these
teachings also suggest the desirability of the wall-mounted
vacuum cleaner of Hamrick (shown in figure 13), wherein a
tubular fitting 116 is used in place of conduits, which allows
for the exhaust of air to vent “directly externally of the
room”.
Beginning on page 12 of the brief, appellant argues that
Hamrick is silent on any teaching or suggestion of a desire or
ability to eliminate the exhaust conduit as required by the
claimed invention. For the above reasons, we disagree with
appellant’s position.
On page 13 of the brief, appellant argues that the examiner
admits that Hamrick is deficient with respect to disclosing an
air exhaust outlet venting through a rear wall. However, as
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007