Appeal No. 95-3184
Application 07/981,910
This limitation finds support in a number of places in the
appellant’s originally filed disclosure such as, for example, the
graph depicted in Figure 4 (see reference numeral 421) and the
corresponding portions of the underlying specification (page 62
et seq.). Contrary to the examiner’s interpretation, the word
“solely” limits only the successive increase in pulsatile form of
the pressure of the gas in the airway and does not exclude other
pressure increases such as those involving the constant positive
airway pressure (CPAP) and tidal volume deliveries discussed
throughout the appellant’s specification.
Thus, the disclosure of the instant application as
originally filed would reasonably convey to the artisan that the
appellant had possession at that time of the method now recited
in claim 33 wherein the successive increase in pulsatile form of
the pressure of the gas in the airway of the patient is caused
“solely” by the successive addition of the small volumes of gas.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, rejection of this claim or of claims 34 through
39 which depend therefrom.
As for the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 33
through 39, Emerson discloses a method and apparatus “for
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007