Appeal No. 2005-2569
Application No. 10/200,828
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the teachings
of Benavides in light of the teachings of Bishop with respect to the supply of cooling air
from the floor to motivate skilled artisans to move the fans from the top of the enclosure
of Benavides to the bottom (we assume into the tile). While we would find the
modification to be a reasonable modification, if the fans were relocated to the bottom of
the enclosure which is supported or suggested by the teachings of Bishop, we can not
agree with the examiner’s conclusion that the supporting floor tile would contain the fan
or fans. We would agree with the examiner’s premise in the rejection that the fans
would have then been reversed to push cool air into the enclosure rather than to pull the
hot air out of the enclosure. Here, we find no teaching or suggestion that the fans would
be removed from the enclosure/rack and placed into the floor support. While we could
speculate as to the variations of obtaining and moving cool air through the floor, it would
be mere unsupported speculation, which we will not do. Therefore, we agree with
appellant that the examiner has not shown in the prior art a teaching or provided a
convincing line of reasoning as why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to have placed the fan in the support tile, and we find that the examiner has
not established a prima facie case of obviousness of dependent claims 6 and 8 and
claims 7 and 9 which depend therefrom.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007