Appeal No. 2004-0160
Application No. 09/939,993
flexible conduit 80 is connected to an outlet of the housing and
directs heat and air to a desired location. The end of the conduit
terminates in a nozzle 82 having a central discharge port 84 at the
end of an elongated projection, and a ring of ports 86 radially
disposed around the projection. Because ports 86 are closer to the
end of conduit 80 than port 84, ports 86 “prevent the development
of substantial back pressure in conduit 80 if port 84 is closed due
to contact with a person’s scalp” (column 3, lines 45-47).
In support of the standing rejection of the appealed claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the examiner considers that DE ‘484
discloses all elements called for in independent claims 1, 6 and
13, except for the “means for venting” of claims 1 and 6, and the
corresponding “opening in the housing of the air outlet for venting
air . . .” of claim 13. To account for this difference, the
examiner turns to Caruso, contending (final rejection, page 3) that
the port arrangement of Caruso’s nozzle demonstrates that it is
conventional and well known in the art to provide means for venting
air from a forced air drier if the main outlet is blocked in order
to prevent the development of substantial back pressure. The
examiner posits that it would have been obvious to provide a
similar venting means in DE’ 484 since, in the examiner’s view, “DE
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007