Appeal No. 2004-0891
Application No. 09/810,539
stated by the examiner on page 4 of the answer, the location of
the exhaust would have been obvious based upon the configuration
requirements of varying size walls and units. Also, the
examiner refers to Uehara for teaching locating the exhaust at
the rear. Answer, page 4 and Figure 1 of Uehara.
In view of the above, we affirm the rejection.
II. The rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Hamrick in view of
Tucker and Uehara and further in view of
Harrelson
On page 20 of the brief, appellant argues that because
Harrelson does not cure the asserted deficiencies of Hamrick,
Tucker, and Uehara, the applied art does not suggest or teach the
subject matter of claim 5.
For the reasons stated above with regard to the previous
rejection, we affirm the rejection of claim 5 also.
III. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatenable over Simonelli
Beginning on page 16 of the brief, appellant argues that
Simonelli is silent regarding any teaching or suggestion of an
exhaust outlet that vents directly externally of the room
without any external conduit.
We again refer to our interpretation of claim 1 with regard
to the claimed air exhaust outlet. Appellant has not shown
that, for example, the exhaust ducting means 35 of Simonelli is
patentably distinguishable from outlet 22 as depicted in
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007