Appeal No. 2003-1945
Application No. 08/240,877
appellants and the examiner regarding the merits of these
rejections.3
DISCUSSION
Simpson, the examiner’s primary reference, discloses a
respiratory face mask comprising a pouch 1-5 composed of at least
one sheet of filtration-effective material and at least one sheet
of backing material, a strap 10 for securing the pouch over the
nose and mouth of a user, and an exhalation valve 12 positioned
on the pouch adjacent the user’s nose and/or mouth to prevent the
build-up of water vapor in the filtration-effective material
during exhalation. In one embodiment, the exhalation valve takes
the form of a flap valve:
[t]he flap valve 13 of Fig. 2 comprises a flexible
circular flap member 15 of, for example, plastics
material, which is arranged to cover and [close] valve
openings 16 during inhalation and to flex away from
those openings during exhalation. To allow flexing of
the flap member 15 a part of its peripheral portion, a
segment of the flap member, is fixed in position, the
remaining part of the flap member being left free. The
valve is fitted in an aperture in the mask and is held
in place by a retaining ring 17 which engages the edge
portion of that opening to provide an effective seal
[page 2, lines 37 through 50].
3 In the last Office action (Paper No. 56), claim 66 also
stood rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite. As this rejection has not been restated in the
answer, we assume that it has been withdrawn by the examiner in
view of the above noted amendment of claim 66.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007