Appeal No. 1998-1315
Application No. 08/334,751
adding the word “exclusively” before the word “dry” as in
claim 1 on appeal has no substantive effect. In other words,
since a “dry” multi-stage filtering means has no moisture, it
follows that an “exclusively dry” multi-stage filtering means
will likewise have no moisture. From appellants’
specification, we understand that both a dry and an
exclusively dry multi-stage filtering means is one wherein
each and every stage thereof is dry.
Therefore, we reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph rejection of claim 1 posited by the examiner. Since
claims 2, 4 through 9, 11 through 13 and 15 through 18 depend
from claim 1 we
will also reverse the examiner’s rejection of these claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim
1 as being obvious over McGoff in view of Brookman, we first
turn to the prior art patents used in the rejection. McGoff
discloses a carbon monoxide conversion device used in training
devices and simulators used with a conventional face mask and
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007