Appeal No. 1999-2553
Application No. 08/802,222
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims , to the applied prior art references, and to the3
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. For the reasons which follow, we cannot sustain the
examiner's rejections.
Independent claim 1 requires, inter alia, a plate
including "an aperture centered therein for accommodating
airflow into and out of the mouth." Independent claim 5,
likewise, recites a plate including an air passage
therethrough and means for positioning the air passage in the
mouth and for "allowing the continuous ingress and egress of
air through the air passage when the lips are separated."
Stated differently, each of independent claims 1 and 5
requires a plate including an aperture or air passage therein
which permits air flow therethrough in both directions, into
and out of the mouth.
3In claim 1, last paragraph, it appears that "lateral" should be
"laterally." Additionally, "anti-snoring" in line 1 of claims 4 and 10 should
be changed to "snore prevention" for consistency with the terminology used in
claims 1 and 5, respectively. While these informalities do not render the
scope of the claims indefinite, they are worthy of correction.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007