Appeal No. 2006-1308
Application No. 10/269,974
an external wall of a building. In this regard, we note that, while the preamble of
claim 10 recites a “self-closing vent,” the claim recites the self-closing vent “being
mounted on said external wall” of a building and is thus directed to a self-closing
vent mounted on an external wall of a building (i.e., the combination of a building
with an external wall and a self-closing vent mounted on said external wall) and
not simply to a self-closing vent.
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the primary reference Lamb
teaches or suggests mounting of the fire screen disclosed therein on an external
wall of a building. Thwaites is simply relied upon by the examiner for its teaching
of the use of intumescent-coated structural honeycomb material in fire-protective
ducting1 and a screen with a substantially flat peripheral flange (answer, pp. 3-4).
Urdaneta is relied upon by the examiner solely for its teaching of frames with
decorative figures (answer, p. 5).
Lamb’s invention “relates to fire prevention devices generally and more
particularly to fire screens or dampers of the character employed for preventing the
transmission of conflagration through air ducts or ventilating openings from one
part of a building structure to another” (p. 1, col. 1, ll. 1-6). Lamb goes on to
explain that the increasing popularity of air conditioning apparatus has increased
the normal fire hazards by increasing the number of ducts or passages leading from
1 While Lamb does not use the term “intumescent,” the coating on the mesh material of Lamb’s fire screen is
described as being “adapted upon subjection to excessive temperatures to expand and close the screen openings,
thereby converting the reticulated screen into a solid or imperforate, non-inflammable fire screen” (p. 1, col. 2, ll. 7-
11) and is thus in fact “intumescent” material.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007