Appeal No. 2005-2569
Application No. 10/200,828
With respect to independent claim 20, appellant argues that appellant argues that
appellant “can not find [in, sic] the Bishop and/or Benavides” a floor tile supporting the
enclosure that includes a plurality of fans. (Brief at page 11.) As discussed above with
respect to claims 6 and 16, 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 claim 20.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-3, 10-12, 14, 15,
and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed, and the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 6-9, 16-18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007