Appeal No. 1998-2656
Application No. 08/523,535
A reading of the Hoffman document readily informs us that
the patentee is addressing a ventilator that is used to
ventilate the lungs of a patient. The ventilator relies upon
a source of pressurized air P and a vacuum source V (Fig. 1).
As indicated above, independent claim 9 on appeal sets
forth an anesthesia apparatus, not a ventilator. We share
appellant's point of view that the applied Hoffman reference
does not relate to the type of apparatus now being claimed
(brief, page 10). Thus, it is quite apparent that even if the
Hoffman teaching were modified by the Wells and Healy
disclosures, as proposed by the examiner, the resulting entity
would be a ventilator not an anesthesia apparatus. Since the
evidence before us is deficient for the reason articulated
above, the respective rejections of appellant's claims cannot
be sustained.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
This application is remanded to the examiner to assess
the patentability of the claimed anesthesia apparatus from the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007