Appeal No. 95-1908
Application 07/890,620
analyzed in a laboratory to determine whether any breakthrough
of chemical has occurred and to identify which chemicals have
broken through the protective clothing. Accordingly, the
prior art pads apparently do not carry reagent means as
required by the appealed claimed device. Since Gunderson3
teaches that methods are needed for detecting chemical
permeation through gloves and other protective garments in the
workplace, the question raised is whether or not one of
ordinary
skill in the art would have been led to provide the prior art
reaction pads with a reagent means responsive to the presence
of the contaminant for producing a visible indication for the
purpose of instantaneously alerting the wearer that the
protective glove or clothing has been breached. We decline to
exercise our discretion to impose a new rejection of the
appealed claims based on the prior art disclosures discussed
above. The examiner should reconsider the record in light of
See Gunderson et al (Gunderson) “A Practical Study in Laboratory and3
Workplace Permeation Testing”, APPL. IND. HYG., Vol. 4, No. 12, ppg. 324-329,
particularly page 329, December 1989, a copy of which is attached to
appellant's brief as Exhibit B.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007