Appeal No. 99-0230
Application No. 08/396,277
USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Spada, 911 F.2d
705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the
present case, while Henry discloses much of the structure
recited in claims 11 and 12, we agree with the appellants that
it does not disclose all of it. This being the case, we will
not sustain this rejection.
The pivotal issue here again is the absence of a teaching
in Henry of using a microphone to measure the level of
turbulence in the inhalation airstream. As explained above,
we find this to be lacking in Henry, and therefore it is not
anticipatory of claims 11 and 12.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007