Appeal No. 1999-0178
Application No. 08/658,849
spherical shape and would contain an ample charge of oxygen
under pressure (page 2, lines 71 through 88). If the examiner
concludes that the subject matter is taught or suggested by
Meikle, an appropriate rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or
35 U.S.C. § 103 should be considered. Similarly, the other
pending claims should be reviewed. For example, as to claims 2
and 5, the examiner should consider that Meikle discloses two
containers, i.e., expansion chamber 28 and oxygen tank 21.
The examiner should also evaluate the combined teachings of
Meikle and other prior art, e.g., the teaching of bottle “b”
in Figures 2 and 3 of Keller et al (U.S. Patent No. 2,406,334
of record in the application).
In summary, this panel of the board has not sustained
each of the examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Additionally, we have remanded the application to the examiner
to review the matters specified above.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED AND REMANDED
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007