Appeal No. 97-0519
Application 08/291,719
or the wall mounted picture frame and deodorizing cabinet of
Benedict, so as to arrive at the subject matter set forth in
appellant’s claims 1, 12 and 21 on appeal. As to independent
claim 18, we share appellant’s view that one of ordinary skill
in the art would not have found any suggestion in the applied
references to merely take the warning lights and buzzers from
the wall mounted fume protection cabinet in Heffer and somehow
apply those same
features to the portable breathing apparatus of Hall. Thus,
the examiner's rejection of appellant's claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7,
9, 11 through 16, 18, 20 through 28, 37 and 41 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 based on Hall, Heffer and Benedict will not be
sustained.
We have also reviewed the patent to Dosch applied by
the examiner in the § 103 rejection of dependent claims 10,
17, 19 and 42. However, we find nothing in this reference
which would supply that which we have noted above to be
lacking in the basic combination of Hall, Heffer and Benedict.
Accordingly, the examiner's rejection of claims 10, 17, 19 and
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007