Appeal No. 96-4041
Application 08/264,704
the application. Subsequent to the final rejection, appellant
submitted an amendment canceling claim 12. Accordingly, only
claims 1 and 3-11 remain in the application.
Appellant’s invention pertains to a scavenging device
that prevents the release of anesthetic gas into the
environment of an operating room. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from reading independent claim 1, a
copy of which is appended to appellant’s brief.
The references of record relied upon by the examiner in
support of the rejections are:
Trammell et al (Trammell) 4,407,280 Oct. 4,
1983
Poppendiek et al (Poppendiek) 4,832,042 May
23, 1989
Corn 5,370,110 Dec.
6, 1994
Claims 1 and 3-11 stand rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1-8 of the Corn patent.2
Claims 1 and 3-11 stand further rejected under 35 U.S.C.
2This is a new ground of rejection made for the first
time in the answer.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007