Appeal No. 2005-2569
Application No. 10/200,828
limited the claimed invention to exclude fan assemblies that are mounted to the
enclosure. (Answer at pages 4 and 5.) We agree with the examiner.
Appellant argues that the fans of Benavides are “integrated with the top of the
cabinet and are part of the enclosure. (Brief at page 7.) We disagree with appellant
and find that Figure 2 of Benavides is one embodiment that has these four additional
fans attached to the exterior of the enclosure and are separate and distinct from the
enclosure. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive. Appellant argues that the
examiner has not provided a showing for a motivation to combine the teachings of
Bishop and Benavides. (Brief at pages 12-14.) We find that the examiner has set forth
a sufficient analysis of the teaching of Bishop which has a lack of detail as to the source
of the air flow and that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention look to the teachings of Benavides with respect to the use of
fans as oriented therein. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive, and we will sustain
the examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness of independent claim 1 and dependent
claims 2 and 3 which have not been separately argued.
With respect to dependent claims 6 and 8, appellant argues that appellant
“cannot find in the cited combination” where the primary fan is part of the floor tile that
supports the enclosure of the computing system or where the floor tile includes plural
fans. (Brief at pages 8-9.) The examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007