Appeal No. 95-4152
Application 08/042,044
represent the inventors' own work and, thus, do not constitute
prior art.
Grouping of claims
Appellants state under the Grouping of Claims that "[t]he
presumption set forth in 37 C.F.R. 1.92(c)(5) [sic,
1.192(c)(5)] is correct with regard to the rejected claims"
(Br17). Nevertheless, appellants proceed to argue all of the
claims in each ground of rejection individually. Since the
examiner has treated all the claims, we consider the claims
individually.
Claims 1 and 7 -- Hanson
Initially, there are several matters of claim
interpretation with respect to claim 1. First, the preamble
limitation "for being worn by a person in a heated environment
where stratified heat is present which increases vertically,"
is considered a statement of environment or intended use for
the apparatus and not a structural limitation. Second, the
limitation "wherein upon said head-protective helmet being
present in said stratified heat an envelope of reduced heat is
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007