Appeal No. 2006-1955
Application No. 10/818,060
Crongeyer and claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Aldrich in view of Crongeyer and Borges.
Rather than reiterate in their entirety the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellants regarding this appeal, we make reference to the
final rejection (mailed March 21, 2005) and examiner's answer (mailed August 16,
2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to the
appellants’ brief (filed July 22, 2005) and reply brief (filed October 14, 2005) for
the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration
to the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. For the
reasons that follow, we cannot sustain either of the examiner’s rejections.
Claim 1 recites at least one refrigeration unit comprising a casing of a
predetermined size and a frame on a vehicle refrigeration compartment having an
opening of about said predetermined size to receive said casing. Aldrich, on the
other hand, is directed to a roof mount air conditioner 20 comprising a cabinet
including a shroud outer cover 22, a shroud inner liner 24 and a base pan 28.
Objects of Aldrich’s invention are to provide an air conditioner in which the air
inlets and outlets are essentially hidden from view to enhance the aesthetics of the
air conditioner (col. 2, ll. 24-29) and to provide an air conditioner which is better
shielded by the cabinet shroud from inclement weather invasion (col. 2, ll. 30-33).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013