Appeal 2007-1802
Application 10/648,575
(Specification [0009]). Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is
reproduced below:
1. A vacuum system for a vehicle comprising:
a hose storage module adapted to house a retractable vacuum
hose having a first end and a second end;
a vacuum console adapted to house a vacuum nozzle attached to
the first end of the vacuum hose; and
a vacuum canister fluidly connected to the second end of the
vacuum hose, the hose storage module being positioned within the vehicle
and configured to allow the retractable hose to reach any portion of the
interior space of the vehicle.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Laurent FR 2 689 474 Oct. 8, 1993
Schollmayer DE 299 21 025 Apr. 27, 2000
Harrelson 6,817,058 B1 Nov. 16, 2004
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-3 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Laurent and Schollmayer.
Claims 4 and 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Laurent, Schollmayer, and
Harrelson. 1
1 Appellants have not provided separate arguments for the rejected claims.
We will limit our discussion to claim 1. We will refer to the English-
language translations for the Laurent and Schollmayer references that have
been entered into the present record.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013