Appeal No. 2005-2052
Application No. 09/996,842
OPINION
I. THE 35 U.S.C. § 103 REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1 THROUGH 7 AS
BEING OBVIOUS OVER DE’LONGHI IN VIEW OF WOOLLEY
The examiner’s position for this rejection is set forth on
pages 3 through 6 of the answer. We refer to the examiner’s
position as set forth therein, as our own.
The examiner’s basic position is that De’Longhi teaches a
portable, sealed electrically-heated radiator containing a
diathermal fluid within tubular radiator units. The diathermal
fluid is heated by an electric heater 4, and thermoventilation
unit 6 is mounted adjacent the tubular units that enhances
thermal convection. Answer, pages 3-4.
The examiner recognizes that thermoventilation unit 6
(having fan 7) of De’Longhi is positioned at a location
different from the position of the fan as recited in appellants’
claim 1. That is, appellants’ claim 1 recites that the fan is
positioned above the sealed radiator.
The examiner relies upon Woolley for teaching to position
fans 19 above the radiator unit for directing air onto the
radiator units’ upper portions to enhance thermal convection.
The examiner refers to figure 1 of Woolley and page 1, column 2,
lines 27 through 42, in this regard. Answer, page 4.
The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
have positioned the fan above the tubular radiator unit in
De’Longhi, as taught by Woolley, in order to heat a maximum
volume of room air and more uniformly distribute heat throughout
the room. Answer, page 4.
With regard to the claim recitation of “enhancing thermal
convection of a diathermal fluid”, the examiner’s position is
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007