Ex Parte Luddy et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 16, 2010

10947620 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 16, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/947,620 09/22/2004 Robert L. Luddy 2239-059 1262
24112 7590 11/16/2010
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
KOSANOVIC, HELENA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3749
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/16/2010 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex Parte Robert L. Luddy, William B. Griffin, and Nicolas I. Perry
__________

Appeal 2009-6578
Application 10/947,620
Technology Center 3700
___________

Before: RICHARD E. SCHAFER, SALLY G. LANE, and SALLY C.
MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHAFER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Applicants appeal from the Final Rejection of Claims 1-14 and 16-30.
35 U.S.C. § 134(a).2 We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

2 Our opinion relies on the Appeal Brief submitted May 12, 2008,
Examiner’s Answer mailed July 22, 2008, and Reply Brief submitted
September 22, 2008.

Appeal 2009-6578
Application 10/947,620

- 2 -
Background
The Examiner finally rejected Claims3 1-14 and 16-30 on the
following grounds:
1. Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 28, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Fritz;4
2. Claims 9, 10, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Fritz;
3. Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over Fritz
and Belusa; 5
4. Claims 11, 12, 16-21, and 23-27 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over Fritz and Neitzel;6 and
5. Claims 13, 14, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
obvious over Fritz, Neitzel, and Belusa.
We affirm-in-part.
The Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed subject matter generally relates to a system and method
for removing cooking smoke and odors from kitchens, especially
commercial kitchens. Commercial kitchens often include three air handling
systems. In addition to the familiar exhaust hood smoke removal system,

3 All references to the claims are to the Claims Appendix of the Appeal
Brief. App. Br. 20-26. The Examiner has certified that the copy of the
claims is correct. Ans. 2.

4 U.S. Patent 4,484,563.

5 U.S. Patent 4,705,457.

6 U.S. Patent 4,373,509.

Appeal 2009-6578
Application 10/947,620

- 3 -
commercial kitchens often include a system for injecting “make-up” air to
replace the air removed by the exhaust system (Appl.7 ¶ 0002) and a system
to provide heated or cooled air (“AC-air”) to control the temperature of the
ambient air in the kitchen. Appl. ¶ 0004.
Claim 1 is directed to a method that includes directing unconditioned
make-up air and “high velocity” AC-air into a kitchen having an exhaust
hood. The velocities of the make-up and AC-air are controlled so that the
velocity of the AC-air is equal to or greater than the velocity of the make-up
air. The high velocity AC-air is said to isolate the make-up air under the
hood for removal by the exhaust system. Appl. ¶ 0027.
Representative Claim 1 recites (emphasis added):
1. A method of directing two streams of air, a
conditioned stream and an unconditioned stream, into a
kitchen having an exhaust hood through which air is
exhausted from the kitchen, the method comprising:
a. directing the conditioned air stream into the
kitchen and out an outlet in the vicinity of the exhaust
hood;
b. directing the unconditioned air stream into the
kitchen and out an outlet positioned generally between
the exhaust hood and the outlet for the conditioned air
stream; and
c. controlling the velocity of one or both air
streams such that the velocity of the conditioned air
stream equals or exceeds the velocity of the
unconditioned air stream.
Applicants’ Fig. 4, reproduced below, shows an embodiment of
their invention. Appl. ¶ 0014.

7 “Appl.” refers to the published version of Applicants’ specification, U.S.
Publication 2006/0060187.
Appeal 2009-6578
Application 10/947,620

- 4 -
Figure 4 above shows Applicant’s air-flow system.
The exhaust 14 withdraws exhaust air laden with smoke and odors
from the kitchen. Appl. ¶ 0015. Make-up air and AC-air are provided by
ducts 80 and 90, respectively. The placement of the AC-air duct and the
velocity of the AC-air act to isolate the make-up air, along with the cooking
odors and smoke, under the exhaust hood 14 for removal. Appl. ¶ 0027.
The AC-air is predominately dispersed into the kitchen area to control the
ambient temperature. Appl. 3, ¶ 0027.
Appeal 2009-6578
Application 10/947,620

- 5 -
The Fritz Patent
All the rejections rely on the teachings of the Fritz patent. For some
claims, Fritz is the only reference relied upon. For the remaining claims
Fritz is combined with the teachings of other references.
Fritz describes a system that employs AC-air and make-up air in
conjunction with an exhaust hood. Fritz’s system and method is illustrated
by Fig. 1, reproduced below:

Figure 1 above shows Fritz’s air-flow system.
Smoke and odors are exhausted through hood 12. Fritz, col. 3, l. 47-
66. Pressurized make-up air passes through chamber 40 and enters the hood
area through louvers 43. The make-up air enters the hood at low velocity.
Fritz, col. 8, ll. 22-28. Pressurized AC-air is provided by passage 65 and
enters into the kitchen through diffuser 67. The AC-air enters the kitchen in
the form of an “air curtain.” The air curtain forms a barrier that keeps the
Appeal 2009-6578
Application 10/947,620

- 6 -
make-up air, smoke, and odors under the exhaust hood. Fritz, col. 4, l. 67 –
col. 5, l. 12. Fritz, however, does not expressly describe the relative
velocities of the AC-air curtain and the make-up air.
Claims 1, 2 and 5-8
The examiner rejected Claim 1 and its dependent Claims 2, 5-8 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Fritz. The examiner recognized that
Fritz did not expressly describe controlling the relative velocities of the AC-
air and make-up air streams so that the velocity of AC-air equals or exceeds
the velocity of the make-up air. The examiner additionally relied upon
Henson8 as evidence that a person having ordinary skill in the art would
understand “air curtain” to refer to a high velocity air stream. The examiner
found that in order for Fritz’s air curtain to function as a barrier, the AC air
curtain velocity would necessarily have to be faster than the velocity of the
make up air. Ans., 11-12. The examiner found that the use of high velocity
AC-Air and lower velocity make-up air as required by the claim was
inherent in Fritz’s teachings.
Applicants argue that Fritz does not anticipate Claim 1. Specifically,
they argue that Fritz does not teach “that the velocity of the conditioned air
stream should equal or exceed the velocity of the unconditioned stream.”
App. Br. 8. Applicants also argue that the examiner’s finding of inherency
is based upon speculation and conjecture and that it was inappropriate to rely
on the Henson reference as part of an anticipation rejection. App. Br. 10
We hold that the examiner has established, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the use of conditioned AC-air having a higher velocity than

8U.S. Patent 3,687,057.
Appeal 2009-6578
Application 10/947,620

- 7 -
the velocity of the unconditioned make-up air is inherent in Fritz’s
disclosure.
Fritz teaches the use of an air curtain to isolate cooking smoke and
odors and to provide ambient air conditioning. Fritz, col. 4 l. 67 - col. 5 l 11.
An air curtain implies a high velocity stream or flow of air. Henson, col. 5
ll. 46-53. Fritz also teaches providing low velocity unconditioned make-up
air. Fritz col. 8, ll. 22-25. The teaching of the use of an “air curtain,” the
understanding that an “air curtain” is a high velocity stream and the teaching
of the use of low velocity make-up air is sufficient to establish, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that Fritz’s air curtain has a velocity higher
than the velocity of the make-up air stream.
In addition, a comparison of Fritz’s and Applicants’ arrangement of
the exhaust hood and make-up air and AC-air vents and the description of
the results achieved supports a finding that Applicants’ and Fritz’s process
and system are the same. Both Fritz’s and Applicants’ systems have very
similar configurations. Thus, both place the AC-air outputs in similar
locations compared to the exhaust hood and stove. Fritz, Fig. 1, Appl., Fig.
4. Both direct the AC-air downwardly in front of the hood and along the
front of the stove area. Fritz, Fig. 1; Appl., Fig. 4. Fritz’s air curtain creates
a barrier that confines the make-up air and cooking vapors to the cooking
area. Fritz, col. 5 ll. 2-4; Fig. 1. Applicants’ high velocity AC-air similarly
isolates the make-up air and cooking vapors from the kitchen area. Appl., ¶
0027. Fritz teaches that the amount of supplied low velocity make-up air is
less than the amount withdrawn by the exhaust. Fritz, col. 4 ll. 18-22. This
would result in a lowered air pressure in the vicinity of the exhaust hood.
Applicants’ system also creates a low pressure area under the exhaust hood.
Appeal 2009-6578
Application 10/947,620

- 8 -
Appl., ¶ 0027. Fritz shows that the low velocity make-up air exits the
louvers 43 and is withdrawn through exhaust chamber 21. Fritz, Fig. 1 (note
the arrow showing the flow of air from louvers 43 towards chamber 21).
Applicants similarly show that the low velocity make-up air moves from
duct 80 towards exhaust hood 14. Appl., Fig. 4. Fritz teaches that the AC-
air is used to control the ambient air temperature in the kitchen. Fritz, Col.
8, ll.7-21. Applicants’ high velocity AC-air is also used to control ambient
kitchen air temperature. Appl., ¶ 0008 (“By controlling the relative velocity
of the two streams of air, the untempered air is encouraged to enter the
exhaust hood while the tempered air is engaged to enter the kitchen area for
generally heating or cooling the air therein.”)
These similarities show, at least by a preponderance of the evidence,
that Fritz’s claimed process is the same as Applicant’s process. In order for
Fritz’s process to obtain the outcomes described in that patent (e.g., the
formation of an air barrier, formation of low pressure under the exhaust
hood, and control of the ambient air conditions), Fritz’s air curtain must
have a higher velocity than the make-up air. We agree with the examiner’s
finding (Ans. 12) that if it were otherwise, the AC-air would be removed
through the exhaust hood rather than act as a barrier to smoke and odors. In
other words, if the AC-air were moving slower than the make-up air it would
not act as a barrier to isolate the cooking vapors. The fact that a portion of
Fritz’s AC-air is also drawn into the low pressure area under the exhaust
hood does not detract from Fritz’s teaching of the use of an air curtain,
which implies a high velocity stream of air. Applicants have not proffered
an explanation of how Fritz’s system and method could achieve its intended
Appeal 2009-6578
Application 10/947,620

- 9 -
results while using an AC-air velocity that was lower than the make-up air
velocity.
We find that “controlling the velocity of the air streams such that the
velocity of the conditioned air stream exceeds the velocity of the
unconditioned air stream” is inherent in Fritz’s method.
Applicants argue that the examiner’s use of the Henson patent along
with Fritz in a rejection under § 102 “is confusing and troubling.” App. Br.,
p. 9. It is neither. It is well settled that multiple references may be used in
the context of an anticipation rejection, to show how one skilled in the art
would understand words and phrases used in the anticipating reference. In
re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (Extrinsic
evidence may be used to explain, but not expand, the meaning of terms and
phrases in an anticipatory reference.); In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562-63
(CCPA 1978) (“[T]he key issue before us is whether the PTO, in making a
rejection under 35 USC 102(b) on a single prior art reference that discloses
every material element of the claimed subject matter, can properly rely on
additional references for such purpose. We hold in the affirmative.”).
We affirm the rejection of Claim 1 as anticipated by Fritz. Since
Applicants have not presented arguments asserting the separate patentability
of the subject matter of dependent Claims 2 and 5-8, we affirm the rejection
of those claims also.
Claim 4
The examiner rejected Claim 4 under § 102(b) as anticipated by Fritz.
Claim 4 depends from Claim 1. It adds the requirement that the velocity of
the make-up air and/or the AC-air is adjusted by using dampers in the air
stream conduits.
Appeal 2009-6578
Application 10/947,620

- 10 -
The examiner found that Fritz’s “flow control dampers” 72 and 54
meet this limitation. Applicants argue that Fritz’s flow control dampers are
used to control the mix of conditioned and fresh air reaching blower 60 to
control the temperature of the air curtain. App. Br., p. 10. Applicants
further argue that flow control dampers “72 and 54 in Fritz have nothing
whatsoever to do with varying the full velocity of any stream of air.”
We disagree. In operation, Fritz’s flow control dampers limit the air
flow reaching and available to blower 60, thus controlling the air output and
velocity, as well as the temperature, of the air leaving the blower. See Fritz
8:7-18 and Figs. 1 and 2.
We affirm the rejection of Claim 4.
Claims 28 and 29
The examiner also held Claims 28 and 29 to be anticipated by Fritz.
Claims 28 and 29 depend from Claim 1.
Claim 28 adds the requirement that the exhaust hood includes a
surrounding wall and an open bottom through which exhaust air enters the
exhaust hood, and wherein the method includes directing the unconditioned
air stream downwardly adjacent an exterior side of the surrounding wall of
the hood and upwardly into the exhaust hood.
Applicants argue that Fritz’s make-up air is directed into the side of
the hood and does not move downwardly adjacent to the side of the hood
and upwardly through the bottom of the hood. App. Br. 11. The examiner
responds that as shown by Fritz’s Fig. 1, make-up air moves downwardly in
the ducts 40 and 41 that are located adjacent to the exterior side of the
exhaust hood. Ans. 13-14.
Appeal 2009-6578
Application 10/947,620

- 11 -
We find that Fritz describes the limitations of Claim 28. As noted by
the examiner and shown in Fritz’s Fig. 1, make-up air is directed
downwardly by ducts 40 and 41. The ducts, along with the make-up air, are
adjacent to and form the front of the exhaust hood. Additionally, as shown
by the arrows indicating air flow in Fritz’s Fig. 2, the make-up air moves
upwardly into the exhaust hood as required by the claims. While Fritz’s
make-up air enters the exhaust hood horizontally, Claim 28 does not exclude
horizontal entry. The claim only requires that the air be “directed”
downwardly adjacent the hood and upwardly into the hood. Fritz’s Fig. 1
shows both.
We affirm the rejection of Claim 28.
Claim 29 further requires directing the unconditioned air stream
downwardly and over a stove disposed below the exhaust hood, and then
upwardly into the bottom of the exhaust hood.
Applicants argue that Fritz’s system directs the air horizontally not
downwardly over the stove and upwardly into the bottom of the hood. App.
Br. 11. The examiner again points to ducts 40 and 41 as directing the make-
up air downwardly and then over the stove located directly below the hood.
Ans. 14.
We find that Fritz teaches the subject matter of Claim 29. As shown
in Fig. 1, the make-up air moves downwardly in ducts 40 and 41 and, upon
exiting duct 41 moves over the stove and then, as shown by the air flow
arrows, is directed upwardly into the hood.
The rejection of Claim 29 is affirmed
Appeal 2009-6578
Application 10/947,620

- 12 -
Claims 9 and 10
The examiner rejected Claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fritz. These claims depend from Claim 1 and recite the
relative velocities of the make-up and AC-air. Claim 9 requires that the
velocity of the AC-air exceed the velocity of the make-up air by 20-60%.
Claim 10 requires that the velocity of the AC-air be approximately 200 feet
per minute and that of the make-up air be 150 feet per minute.
Fritz teaches using an air curtain. As noted above, an air curtain is a
high velocity air stream. Fritz also teaches a low velocity fresh air stream as
make-up air. The fresh air stream is provided by a fan that may be of any
suitable capacity in accordance with the desired fluid flow capacity. Fritz,
col. 4 ll. 57-66. The amount of make-up air is less than the amount of air
removed by the exhaust. Fritz, col. 4 ll. 18-22. The combination of the air
curtain, make up air stream and exhaust must be such that cooking smoke
and odors are isolated and removed while providing a suitable flow of AC-
air to provide the desired ambient temperature in the kitchen area. Fritz, col.
1 ll. 12-20. To achieve this result, one having ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that relative air flows would need to be adjusted to meet the
particular needs of any specific kitchen layout. It would have been within
the skill of the art and obvious to determine the appropriate air flow velocity
to form an effective air curtain that isolates smoke and odors while
providing the desired ambient temperature to the kitchen area. The claimed
relationships between the AC-air and make-up air do not recite an unobvious
difference with respect to Fritz’s system.
Applicants argue that the difference between the airflows is not “mere
optimization.” App. Br. 13. They assert:
Appeal 2009-6578
Application 10/947,620

- 13 -
With this degree of difference in velocity, the outer
conditioned air stream prevents the inner unconditioned
air stream from returning to the room and further
encourages the unconditioned air stream to turn and pass
over the stove and up and through the exhaust hood.
App. Br. 13.
In our view, Fritz effectively describes this same result. The AC-air
curtain coupled with supplying low velocity make-up air in an amount less
than removed by the exhaust would cause the unconditioned make-up air to
be drawn into the exhaust and be prevented from entering the kitchen space.
The determination or optimization of the workable air velocities to form the
barrier and trap make-up air and cooking vapors under the exhaust hood are
part of the adaptations one having ordinary skill in the art would make to
practice Fritz’s method. The recitation of the particular velocities, on the
record before us, does not recite an unobvious difference.
The rejection of Claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
affirmed.
Claim 3
The examiner rejected Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious
over the combined teachings of Fritz and Belusa. Claim 3 adds the
additional requirement of controlling the velocity of the one or both air
streams by varying the speed of a fan utilized to move either the conditioned
AC-air or the unconditioned make-up air. While Fritz teaches fans 60 and
32 as providing the air-curtain and make-up air, respectively, Fritz does not
expressly state that the fans have variable speed capability.
Belusa teaches an automated fluid flow control system employing
variable speed fans to control and adjust the speed of the fluid flow. The
system is said to be useful in an air conditioning system. Belusa, col. 1 ll.
Appeal 2009-6578
Application 10/947,620

- 14 -
10-13. Belusa specifically suggests the system for use as part of systems
involving “auxiliary air venting systems such as fume hood venting
systems.” Belusa, col. 15 ll. 1-5.
We find that a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize
that in order to form an air barrier to trap the cooking vapors for extraction,
the velocity of the air would need to be adjusted to meet the conditions and
configuration of the specific kitchen. The use of variable speed fans, as
taught by Belusa, to obtain the desired velocity of the air flows in Fritz’s
system, would have been obvious.
Applicants argue that Belusa has nothing to do with kitchen systems
and exhaust hoods. We disagree. The Belusa reference teaches the use of
its variable speed fan control system for use in air conditioning systems
employing “auxiliary air venting systems such as fume hood venting
systems.” Belusa, col. 15 ll. 1-5. This suggests the use of Belusa’s control
system, along with its variable speed fans, in a kitchen exhaust ventilation
system of the type taught by Fritz. Additionally, we note that the use of
variable speed fans in the air handling art is ubiquitous. The use of variable
speed fans to control air velocity and volume would be within the skill of the
art. It would have been obvious to use variable speed fans in Fritz’s system
to adjust the speed and the volume of the air flow.
The rejection of the subject matter of Claim 3 is affirmed.
Appeal 2009-6578
Application 10/947,620

- 15 -
Claims 11-12, 16-21, 23-27 and 30
The examiner rejected Claims 11-12, 16-21, 23-27 and 309 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Fritz and
Neitzel.
Independent claims 11 and 19 require a dual air flow plenum that
includes two separate air chambers. Each air chamber requires two
horizontally disposed perforated plates. Representative Claim 11 is
reproduced below with emphasis added:
11. A combination kitchen exhaust hood and dual air
flow plenum for directing two separate air streams into
an area adjacent to and outside of an exhaust hood within
a kitchen, comprising:
a. a housing including a surrounding sidewall
structure and a top;
b. a first air inlet formed in the top;
c. a second air inlet formed in the top;
d. a divider extending across the surrounding
sidewall structure;
e. wherein the divider and surrounding
sidewall structure form two separate air chambers with
each air chamber being communicatively open to one of
the first or second inlets;
f. each of the air chambers including two
horizontally disposed perforated plates with one
perforated plate being disposed over the other
perforated-plate such that each air chamber includes two
vertically spaced perforated plates;
g. an exhaust hood for exhausting air from an
underlying stove, and wherein the exhaust hood and dual
airflow plenum are disposed adjacent each other; and

9 The examiner grouped Claim 30 with Claims 9 and 10. Because Claim 30
depends from Claim 19, it is more appropriately grouped with Claim 19.
Appeal 2009-6578
Application 10/947,620

- 16 -
h. each of the air chambers having a generally
horizontal outlet configured to discharge one of the air
streams downwardly with respect to the exhaust hood
and into an area exteriorly of the exhaust hood.
Applicants argue that Fritz does not disclose the use of two horizontal
perforated plates in each air chamber. App. Br. 15. The examiner relies on
Fritz’s horizontal air diffuser 6710 and Neitzel’s disclosure of registers 36a
and 36b as suggesting the limitation. Ans. 16. Fritz describes the air
diffuser 67 as “a plurality of deflection blades which are disposed at an
inwardly directed angle of about 15 degrees from the vertical axis . . . .”
Fritz, col. 5, ll. 41-44. Referring to Neitzel’s Figure 1, the examiner refers to
certain unnumbered structure shown as part of Neitzel’s registers 36a and
36b. According to the examiner, it is well known that such registers include
additional structures such as filters. This additional well known structure is
said to be a second perforated plate:
[T]he Neitzel reference shows, in Fig. 1, that behind the
register 36a and 36b there is an unnumbered structure
that the examiner recognized as a second perforated plate
(see figure below where the examiner with darkened
arrow shows originally not shown perforated plate). It is
well known in the art that behind the register/diffuser
might be filter for cleaning the air, damper plate with a
vanes for regulating the airflows (similar with damper 13
of Neitzel, Fig. I), a mesh as grease plate, or trap for
unwanted particles in the air stream, second pair of
vanes, etc. In all cases said structures must be perforated
other vice [sic] there would not be airflow through the
diffuser.
Ans. 16. The Examiner’s annotated version of Neitzel’s Fig. 1 is
reproduced below. Ans., p. 17.

10 It is apparent that the examiner meant diffuser 67 rather than passage 66.
Appeal 2009-6578
Application 10/947,620

- 17 -

The above figure shows Neitzel’s Fig. 1 with the Examiner’s
notations labeling the 1st and 2nd perforated plates.
Applicants respond that registers 36a and 36b are each single
registers that do not include two plates. App. Br. 16. In other words,
Applicants challenge the correctness of the examiner’s finding that the
“unnumbered structure” would be recognized by a person having
ordinary skill in the art to be a second plate.
In our view, a preponderance of the evidence does not support
the examiner’s finding that registers 36a and 36b include “two . . .
perforated plates” as used in Applicants’ claims. Neitzel Figure 1 is at
best ambiguous as to the structure of registers 36a and 36b. The
examiner has not directed us to and we did not find a description of
the structure of the registers in the reference. In light of Neitzel’s
ambiguity as to the structure, Applicants have adequately challenged
Appeal 2009-6578
Application 10/947,620

- 18 -
the examiner’s holding that it would be “well known” to those having
ordinary skill in the art that the unnumbered structure would be a
second plate.
Additionally, we do not agree with the examiner’s implicit
conclusion that “perforated plate” means any structure that would
allow air to pass through. Ans. 16. We understand the ordinary
meaning of “perforated plate” to be a plate having a hole or a series or
pattern of holes. Our understanding is consistent with the depiction of
perforated plates 64 and 68 in Applicants’ Figure 1. In our view, a
“perforated plate” does not encompass structures, such as Fritz’s
louvers or “deflection blades”.
A prima facie case of obviousness of the subject matter of
Claims 11 and 19 has not been established. We reverse the rejection
of those Claims and their dependent Claims 12, 16-18, 20, 21, 23-27
and 30.
Claims 13, 14 and 22
The examiner rejected the subject matter of Claims 13, 14 and
22 over the combined teachings of Fritz, Neitzel and Belusa. Claims
13 and 14 depend from Claim 11. Claim 22 depends from Claim 19.
We held above that Claims 11 and 19 were not shown to be
unpatentable over the combined teachings of the Fritz and Neitzel
references. The examiner relied on Belusa as teaching the concept of
a variable speed fan in controlling fluid flow. Belusa, however, does
not address the insufficiencies of Fritz and Neitzel, i.e., the failure to
describe “two horizontally opposed perforated plates.” The subject
Appeal 2009-6578
Application 10/947,620

- 19 -
matter of Claims 13, 14 and 22 has not been shown to have been
obvious.
We reverse the rejection of Claims 13, 14, and 22 as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined teachings of
Fritz, Neitzel and Belusa.

DECISIONS
1. The rejections of Claims 1-2 and 4-8, 28, and 29 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Fritz are affirmed.
2. The rejections of Claims 3, 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as obvious are affirmed.
3. The rejection of Claims 11-12, 16-21, 23-27, and 30 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of Fritz and Neitzel
is reversed.
4. The rejection of Claims 13, 14, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as obvious over the combined teachings Fritz, Neitzel, and Belusa is
reversed.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

ack

cc:
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518