Appeal No. 96-4041
Application 08/264,704
disposable hood 12 comprises an enclosure means as called for
in claim 1. Further, we do not consider the claim 1
requirement for a closure means for closing an open bottom of
the enclosure means to form a seal about the patient’s neck to
be an argued distinction over Trammell. In this regard,
appellant does not specifically dispute the examiner’s finding
that Trammell’s "means (24) close[s] said open bottom [of the
enclosure] about the patient’s neck" (answer, page 4).
Further, the general 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph,
discussion found on page 10 of appellant’s brief is not seen
as a specific argument that Trammell does not have the claim 1
"closure means." In any event, Trammell’s opening 23
constitutes "closure means" as called for in claim 1, as that
term would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
when read in light of the specification, in that appellant’s
specification indicates that the "seal" about the patient’s
neck
is "loose" (page 6, line 9), "not necessarily . . . airtight"
(page 7, line 17), and merely creates "an effective degree of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007