Appeal No. 97-0519
Application 08/291,719
reasons - see column 5 [sic, 3]. Heffer
does not teach a completely portable unit
with a
picture frame mounted thereon. Benedict
teaches a cabinet for dispensing room
deodor- izers or the like, where a picture
frame is mounted on the front thereof for
cosmetic purposes. In view of the art of
record, it is shown that the emergency
breathing appara- tus claimed is known in
the art. Therefore the unobviousness
question is based upon providing a known
emergency breathing device with a cosmetic
cover in the form of a pic- ture frame.
The prior art teaches decora- tively
disguising emergency breathing devices with
picture frames as well as other func-
tional devices. Therefore, the teachings
of the prior art teach that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to have decoratively hid an
emergency breath- ing device behind a
picture frame for cos- metic purposes
(answer, page 6).
In an apparent effort to address independent claim
18 on appeal, the examiner has additionally taken the position
that
Heffer teach [sic] the need for visual and
audible location indicating means to allow
the devices to be located during a fire, so
that the victims using the device may be
rescued by firefighters. As such, it would
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007