Appeal No. 95-3184
Application 07/981,910
which communicates with the face mask A and the
patient’s airway [column 3, lines 55 through 68].
The examiner’s conclusion that Emerson teaches or would have
suggested a ventilating method meeting the limitations in
appealed claim 33 requiring the addition in succession of pulses
of small volumes of gas to provide successively greater volumes
of gas successively increasing in pulsatile form the pressure of
the gas in the patient’s airway wherein the successive increase
in pulsatile form of the pressure is caused solely by the
successive addition of the small volumes of gas is not well
taken. While Emerson’s vibration of the column of gas in the
patient’s airway would appear to supply to the airway a plurality
of pulses of small volumes of gas, it is not apparent, nor has
the examiner explained, how these pulses would be additive in
succession to provide successively greater volumes of gas
successively increasing in pulsatile form the pressure of the gas
in the airway. Indeed, Emerson’s teaching that the vibrations or
pulses applied to the column of air cause the air to move first
in one direction and then in the opposite direction would seem to
belie any such conclusion.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007