Appeal No. 2002-1423
Application No. 09/531,839
applied prior art does not establish the lack of novelty or prima
facie obviousness of the claimed subject matter. Accordingly,
the rejections of all claims on appeal are reversed. Our reasons
follow.
Church discloses a respirator for positive pressure forced
air supply to the breathing zone of the wearer comprising a
headpiece that forms the breathing zone. An air flow passage is
provided through which the air passes before entering the
breathing zone. The air flow passage has a short cylinder 42
with a restricted orifice 44 at its downstream end. Col. 2,
lines 34-43. The orifice serves to increase the pressure in
cylinder 42. Col. 2, line 54. This increased pressure is
detected by aperture 49 and supply line 48. The increased
pressure is sufficient to lift float 54 off of its stop and
signal that the requisite amount of air is being supplied.
Claim 1 on appeal requires that suction be generated at the
flow detecting orifice. The examiner has stated that Church
discloses "a pressure differential across the orifice implicit in
which is a suction force across the orifice." We find ourselves
in agreement with appellant that suction is not the manner in
which aperture 44 of Church operates. In fact, Church works by
increasing the pressure in cylinder 42 to send a higher pressure
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007