Appeal No. 2004-0160
Application No. 09/939,993
(2) claim 4, rejected as being unpatentable over DE ‘484 in
view of Caruso, and further in view of Martin; and
(3) claim 14, rejected as being unpatentable over DE ‘484 in
view of Caruso, and further in view of Chimera.
Reference is made to appellant’s main and reply briefs (Paper
Nos. 10 and 12) and to the examiner’s final rejection and answer
(Paper Nos. 8 and 11) for the respective positions of appellant and
the examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.
Discussion
At the outset, appellant contends (main brief, pages 3-6;
reply brief, pages 1-2) that DE ‘484 is nonanalogous art. In an
obviousness determination under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the question of
whether an applied reference constitutes analogous art is normally
considered to be a threshold issue. However, in the view we take
in this appeal, even if we assume that DE ‘484 is analogous art,
the obviousness rejections made by the examiner in the final
rejection and maintained in the answer are not well founded.
As noted above, appellant’s invention is directed to a forced
air dryer designed to dry an infant’s bottom. Using representative
claim 1 as a guide, the claimed subject matter on appeal is a
device for drying a moist region of a person’s body comprising a
housing having an air inlet and an air outlet, an electric fan
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007