Appeal No. 2005-0841
Application No. 08/230,083
26. Claims 1 and 3-11 were rejected on various
grounds.
27. Claims 3, 4 and 6-9 were rejected under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as being indefinite.
28. Claims 2 and 12-14 were "objected to" as being
dependent on a rejected claim.
29. Claims 1, 3-5 and 7-11 were rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the following prior
art:
(1) Feles et al. (Feles), U.S. Patent 3,405,968
or
(2) Frien, U.S. Patent 4,781,106 in view of
(3) Mizusawa, U.S. Patent 4,691,623.
30. Feles, Frien and Mizusawa are prior art vis-à-vis
applicant under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
31. The examiner found that Feles and Frien describe
the claimed invention "substantially as claimed."
32. However, the examiner found that Feles and Frien
do not disclose the resilient clip connection.
33. The examiner further found that Mizusawa shows a
ventilator device for a vehicle.
34. With reference to col. 3, lines 39-48, of
Mizusawa, the examiner noted:
- 7 -7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007