Appeal No. 1998-1315
Application No. 08/334,751
“is merely a training device and not intended or practical for
real life situations” (brief, Paper No. 13, pg. 20), there is
no doubt that real life emergency situations can involve just
“carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons and nitrogen
oxides,” which the device of McGoff is intended to
specifically filter out. Since McGoff states (col. 1, lines
5-8) that his device “relates to the field of training devices
and simulators, and, more specifically, to training in the use
and wearing of a supplemental air supply apparatus that
involves a face mask and an oxygen source” and since Brookman
discloses a conventional face mask capable of being used with
such a device, we find that the examiner has established a
prima facie case of obviousness.
Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claim 1 posited by the examiner. Since claims 5 and 17 depend
from claim 1 and appellants have indicated in their brief
(page 8 that these claims stand or fall with claim 1, it
follows that we will also sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 5 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
In summary, we are reversing the examiner’s rejection of
13
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007