Appeal 2007-2324
Application 10/629,775
based on the Specification’s discussion in paragraphs [0007] and [0041],
which state that a fire plate is merely a plate that stops fire from spreading
(id. at 3). The Examiner states that Vonderhaar’s stove has two structures
encompassed by that interpretation: “fire plate 134 . . . or alternatively . . .
fire plate 77” (id. at 4).
As to the cabinet holder, the Examiner states that “cabinet holder 136
join[s] the fire plate to the side plate, the cabinet holder including a plurality
of fastening pieces on an underside of the cabinet holder wherein the
plurality of first fastening holes receive the plurality of fastening pieces as
discussed in column 6 line 58” (id.). Alternatively, the Examiner cites item
82 as being configured to fasten the fire plate 77 to the side plate “wherein
the cabinet holder includes a plurality of fastening pieces configured for
insertion into the fire plate and the side plate as disclosed at column 5 lines
4-22 because the disclosed studs or pins are construed to be fastening
pieces” (id.).
Based on these teachings, the Examiner finds that Vonderhaar
discloses the claimed invention, except for its laundry dryer application, but
that “Holub, another appliance, is considered to disclose a laundry dryer
application in the field of fire prevention at column 2 line 15 through column
5 line 27” (id. at 5). The Examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill
would have considered it obvious “to combine the teachings of Vonderhaar
with the laundry dryer application for the purpose of fire prevention in the
filed of laundry drying and for the purpose of containing fire within the
domestic appliance” (id.).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013