Appeal No. 2005-2052
Application No. 09/996,842
heat, as taught by Woolley.2 Such an arrangement would not
destroy the function of the apparatus of De’Longhi because an
object of the invention of De’Longhi is to achieve “uniform air
circulation”.3 See column 1, 41-44 of De’Longhi. We also refer
to the examiner’s response made on pages 9-10 of the answer.
Appellant also argues that when the air is directed
downwardly through the radiating elements, room air circulation
is likely to be reduced. Appellant argues that the proposed
modification would provide a weak stream directed in a plane
parallel to the floor, but in all directions. Brief, page 6.
We disagree. This assertion is contrary to the teachings of
Woolley, and we refer to our footnote 3 in this regard. Also,
as discussed, supra (and as discussed by the examiner on page 10
of the answer), the modification would project air downwardly
over the heat transferring surfaces of the radiator to heat a
maximum volume of air and to provide uniform distribution of
heat, as taught by Woolley.
We emphasize that an object of the invention of De’Longhi
is to eliminate the considerable long time to reach operating
temperature to heat a room by providing a mobile apparatus for
heating rooms which has a high yield together with the fact that
it can supply heat to the room immediately after its activation.
See column 1, lines 19 through 35. A thermoventilation unit is
2 The examiner states, on page 9 of the answer, that the relocating of
unit 6 of De’Longhi to the top of De’Longhi’s apparatus would allow
for the pivotal movement of the fan to remain intact.
3 Woolley teaches “positively heating a maximum volume of the room air,
and also most effectively distributing heat uniformly throughout the
room”. See page 1, column 1, lines 24-35. We are not convinced that
such function would impair providing uniform circulation of air in the
room, as asserted by appellant.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007