Appeal No. 2004-0160
Application No. 09/939,993
We have also reviewed the Martin and Chimera references
additionally replied upon by the examiner in the rejections of
claims 4 and 14, respectively, but find nothing in these additional
references that makes up for the deficiencies of DE ‘484 and Caruso
discussed above. Accordingly, we also cannot sustain the standing
rejections of claims 4 and 14.
Remand
This case is remanded to the examiner for consideration of the
following matters.
Caruso discloses a device that responds to many limitations of
the appealed claims. Using claim 1 as a guide, Caruso discloses a
device for drying a moist region of a person’s body (the hair and
scalp) comprising, a housing 12 having an air inlet 54 and an air
outlet 80, 84, an electric fan 40 mounted within the housing, so as
to blow air toward the air outlet, an electric power source 56
connected to the electric fan, an end piece (nozzle 82) protruding
from the air outlet, and a means (radially disposed ports 86) for
venting air to the atmosphere, bypassing the air outlet, if the
outermost end 84 of the air outlet is blocked. Thus, Caruso would
appear to meet all the limitations of at least claim 1, with the
possible exception of the requirement that the end piece has a
“resilient” outermost end.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007