Appeal No. 1998-2656
Application No. 08/523,535
appellant and the examiner, respectively. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determination that appears below.
We cannot sustain each of the examiner's rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellant's independent claim 9 clearly and unambiguously
sets forth an anesthesia apparatus. As disclosed by appellant
in the specification (pages 2, 6, 9, and 12), an anesthesia
machine controls the flow and mixtures of oxygen and a gaseous
anesthetic to a patient.
In support of the rejection of independent claim 9, the
examiner relies upon the basic teaching of Hoffman evaluated
in view of Wells. 3
3Notwithstanding appellant's argument to the contrary
(brief, pages 9 and 10), the Wells patent is considered to be
an appropriate reference since appellant has not made a
specific showing that, in fact, the now claimed anesthesia
apparatus descriptively corresponds to disclosure in an
earlier application.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007