Appeal No. 96-4041
Application 08/264,704
patenting rejection, offering instead to submit a suitable
terminal disclaimer "at such time as the obviousness-type
double patenting rejection stands as the only obstacle to
allowance," we are constrained to affirm this rejection.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
Claim 1 calls for a vapor scavenging device comprising:
(1) an enclosure means for placement over a patient’s head,
(2) closure means for closing an open bottom of the enclosure
means to form a seal about the patient’s neck, (3) a first
opening means disposed in the enclosure means for
accommodating an
anesthesia circuit fitting directly communicating with a
patient’s airway, (4) a second opening in the enclosure means,
and (5) a conduit means sealingly engaging with the second
opening for directly communicating a vacuum force to the
interior of the enclosure means for removing waste gas
therefrom.
Turning to Trammell, the examiner’s primary reference,
appellant does not dispute the examiner’s finding that
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007