Appeal 2007-2193
Application 10/816,369
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Kuwahara US 3,454,978 July 15, 1969
Yip US 6,125,501 Oct. 3, 2000
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being unpatentable over Kuwahara.
2. Claims 3 and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kuwahara in view of Yip.
Appellants separately argue independent claims 1, 13, and 19, and
dependent claims 11 and 15. Accordingly, dependent claims 2-7, 9, 14, 16-
18, and 20-22 stand or fall with the respective independent claims from
which they depend.
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) OVER KUWAHARA
CLAIM 1
Appellants argue that Kuwahara does not disclose “a partition
separating said collection chamber from said reception chamber and having
a partition surface, said partition having an inlet orifice formed therein for
channeling an air stream from said collection chamber to said suction
device, said inlet orifice of said partition coupling said collection chamber to
said suction device in said reception chamber” as recited in claim 1 (Br. 10-
11). Specifically, Appellants' argument is directed to the portion of the
“partition” claim feature that recites, “said inlet orifice of said partition
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013