Appeal No. 2006-1955
Application No. 10/818,060
Crongeyer discloses a mounting arrangement for a vehicle vent structure, the
mounting arrangement including a frame 16 of generally L-shaped cross section
with a vertical leg member 22, the lower end of which is welded continuously
around the entire perimeter of the frame adjacent the edge 18 of an opening in the
sheet metal (e.g., roof) of the vehicle body (col. 2, ll. 16-24), and a horizontal leg
24. The vent assembly 10 is fastened to the horizontal leg 24 of the frame 16 by
screw fasteners such as bolts 36, as illustrated in Fig. 2 (col. 2, ll. 43-44). Even
assuming that Crongeyer would have broadly suggested the use of some sort of
frame member for supporting the air conditioner 20 of Aldrich, it would not have
been obvious to provide a frame having an opening of about the size of the cabinet
of the air conditioner to receive the cabinet, as this would obstruct the air
inlet/outlet openings, discussed above, located on the base pan 28 so as to
communicate with clearance space between the bottom wall 30 and the vehicle
roof surface while being essentially hidden from view and shielded from inclement
weather invasion.
In light of the above, we conclude that the combined teachings of Aldrich
and Crongeyer are insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of the
subject matter of appellants’ claim 1, or claims 2-4 and 6-8 depending from claim
1. The rejection of these claims thus cannot be sustained.
The additional teachings of Borges relied on by the examiner in rejecting
claim 5, which depends from claim 1, provides no cure for the deficiency of the
combination of Aldrich and Crongeyer discussed above. It follows that the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013