Ex Parte Lee - Page 2



                  Appeal 2006-2946                                                                                             
                  Application 10/197,455                                                                                       

                          the side walls defining said passage portion connecting an air outlet                                
                  pipe and a motor driving chamber of a cleaner body; and                                                      
                          a cover attached to the side walls of the duct, the cover having side                                
                  walls and sealing strips formed thereon, the sealing strips contacting the ribs                              
                  to seal the passage portion.                                                                                 
                          The Examiner relies upon the following reference in the rejection of                                 
                  the appealed claims:                                                                                         
                  Palobeis  US 6,725,499 B2 Apr. 27, 2004                                                                      
                          Appellant's claimed invention is directed to a discharging duct of a                                 
                  vacuum cleaner of the upright-type.  The duct has a passage portion and a                                    
                  pair of ribs that are adjacent to side walls and are "adjacent and continuous                                
                  with" the passage portion (claim 1).  Sealing strips of a cover attached to the                              
                  side walls of the duct contact the ribs to seal the passage portion.                                         
                          Appealed claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as                                   
                  being anticipated by Palobeis.                                                                               
                          Appellant has not set forth a separate argument for claim 2.                                         
                  Accordingly, claim 2 stands or falls together with claim 1.                                                  
                          We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant's arguments for                                        
                  patentability.  However, we are in agreement with the Examiner that                                          
                  Palobeis describes the claimed discharging duct within the meaning of                                        
                  § 102.  Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner's rejection for the reasons                                
                  set forth in the Answer.                                                                                     
                          There is no dispute that Palobeis describes a discharging duct 170 for                               
                  a vacuum cleaner of the upright-type comprising a pair of ribs 218 that are                                  
                                                              2                                                                




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007