Appeal No. 96-1902
Application No. 08/156,679
"Where does applicants' original disclosure state
that both sensors are used to control normal
ventilation?" Nowhere does appellants' original
disclosure discuss or define "normal ventilation"
and what they mean by these terms. [Page 3.]
We are at a complete loss to understand the examiner's
position. The claims on appeal do not require that both
sensors be used to control "normal ventilation" or, for that
matter, make any reference whatsoever to "normal ventilation."
In view of the above, we will not sustain the rejection
of claims 11-13, 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph.
Turning to the rejections of claims 11-13, 15 and 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the appellants do not argue that it
would have been unobvious to combine the teachings of the
references in the manner proposed by the examiner. Instead,
the appellants focus on the teachings of Weerda, stating that:
It is evident that in Weerda's system,
respiratory ventilation is controlled by the
measurement of the intratracheal pressure by
pressure probe 5 which, of course, measures the
pressure within the trachea rather than within the
ballonet. Only in the case of "disturbances" in the
operating conditions of the device (column 4, lines
18-25) is any corrective or remedial action taken,
and this action consists only of deflating the
balloon sleeve 3 and switching the operation of the
respirator 44 until the disturbance has been
eliminated (column 4, lines 45-48).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007