Appeal No. 2005-2569
Application No. 10/200,828
With respect to dependent claim10, appellant argues that appellant “cannot find
in the cited combination” where the primary fan is connected to the modular brick by
conduits. (Brief at page 9.) The examiner maintains that Bishop teaches and suggests
the use of conduits to supply cooling air to the electronics. (Answer at page 4.) We
agree with the examiner that Bishop fairly suggests the use of conduits to supply
cooling air from the floor into the enclosure.
With respect to independent claim 11, appellant again argues that the fans of
Benavides are not outside the enclosure. (Brief at page 10.) Again, we do not find this
argument persuasive as discussed above, and we will sustain the rejection of
independent claim 11 and dependent claims 12, 14, 15, and 19 which appellant has not
set forth separate arguments for patentability.
With respect to dependent claims 16-18, appellant argues that appellant “cannot
find in the cited combination” where the “the primary fan located outside the enclosure
to exchange air with the modular brick includes positioning the enclosure above a floor
tile that includes the primary fan.” (Brief at page 11.) As discussed above with respect
to claim 6, we agree with appellant and do not find that the examiner has established a
prima facie case of obviousness, and we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 16-18.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007