Appeal No. 2005-0206
Application No. 10/310,420
Appellants submit at page 4 of the principal brief that "the
claims stand or fall together." Accordingly, all the appealed
claims stand or fall together with claim 23.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
§ 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner's rejection for essentially those reasons
expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
Appellants do not dispute the examiner's factual
determination that Kok, like appellants, discloses a modular
fluid transmission system comprising a modular ductwork assembly
having a plurality of conduit segments mounted therein. As
appreciated by the examiner, Kok does not expressly disclose how
the ductwork assembly is supported. However, we concur with the
examiner that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary
skill in the art to support the assembly of Kok with a support
column, as presently claimed. While we agree with appellants
that the phantom structure depicted in Figure 3 of Kromer does
not correspond to a support column that extends to the floor, we
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007