Appeal No. 2005-1982 3
Application No. 10/155,006
Appellant states that claims 1-7 stand or fall together (Brief, p. 2) and there are
no separate arguments directed to dependent claims 2-7. Appellant also states that
claims 8 and 9 stand or fall together. To represent the issues on appeal, we select
claims 1 and 9.
Considering the issues on appeal as presented by Appellant, we find no
reversible error on the part of the Examiner. Consequently, we affirm. Our reasons
follow.
OPINION
Turning first to the rejection of representative claim 1 over Foote, we note that
the Examiner has identified in Foote each and every structure recited in the claim
(Answer, p. 3). The sole difference between the dryer of Foote and the claimed dryer is
the orientation of the housing. In the claimed dryer housing, the inlet is in the front and
the outlet is in the back such that the mat is fed through the dryer horizontally. In the
housing of Foote, the inlet is in the top and the outlet in the bottom such that the mat is
fed through the housing vertically. Turning the dryer of Foote on one of its sides results
in the claimed front to back inlet/outlet arrangement or horizontal orientation. We
conclude that the Examiner has established a case of prima facie obviousness based
on the reasoning that the horizontal, instead of vertical, orientation of the dryer would
have been a minor matter of design choice as both orientations would serve the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007