Ex parte RUGLESS - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2001-1074                                       Page 2           
          Application No. 08/989,056                                                  


               The appellant's invention relates to oxygen masks that                 
          can serve the purpose of a regular oxygen mask, an aerosol                  
          oxygen mask, and a non-rebreather oxygen mask (specification,               
          p. 1).  A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the               
          appendix to the appellant's brief.                                          


               The prior art references of record relied upon by the                  
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                              
          Engelder                 2,625,155                     Jan. 13,             
          1953                                                                        
          Schnoor                  4,832,017                     May  23,             
          1989                                                                        
          Niemeyer                 4,951,664                     Aug. 28,             
          1990                                                                        
          Nutter                   5,025,805                     June 25,             
          1991                                                                        
          Galleher, Jr.            618,808                       Apr. 25,             
          1961                                                                        
          (Galleher)               (Canada)                                           



               Claims 1 to 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,                   
          second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to                        
          particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter              
          which the appellant regards as the invention.                               









Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007