Appeal No. 1999-2553
Application No. 08/802,222
placed in the mouth with its valve opening inwardly, thereby
admitting a sufficient quantity of air to supply the lungs but
in volume insufficient to cause snoring, the air being
forcibly expelled through the nose at each expiration (page 1,
lines 88-99).
Neither Steil nor Moulton teaches or suggests a snoring
prevention device comprising a plate having an aperture or air
passage which permits air flow in both directions, namely,
both into and out of the mouth, through the aperture or air
passage, as required by independent claims 1 and 5. In this
regard, Moulton expressly teaches an air passage which permits
air flow in only one direction. While the flow can be in a
direction either out of or into the mouth, depending on
whether the plate is disposed in the first orientation or the
reverse orientation as taught by Moulton, in either case, the
air passage is capable of permitting flow in only one
direction, not both directions as required by the claims.
Thus, even if the teachings of Steil and Moulton were combined
as proposed by the examiner, the claimed invention would not
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007