Appeal No. 2004-1009
Application No. 09/785,382 Page 4
re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellants argue that the features listed at page 7, first full
paragraph of the brief distinguish the claimed structure from the
applied prior art. However, as correctly determined by the
examiner (answer, page 7) several of the argued features
represent limitations that can not be found in any of claims 1
and 3-5, such as the various brush diameters and wood
construction argued. As for the other features argued, the
examiner has correctly found that Vallis describes a hair dryer
including all of the recited elements of claims 1 and 3-5
including a linearly elongated handle (10), a directional head
(housing 9) extending from the handle including an angularly
disposed nozzle (housing interior 11) relative to the handle
centerline, an air outlet (14), heating coils (12) and blower
(13) and a brush attachment (drawing figures 1-3) corresponding
to the structure called for in appealed claim 1. Moreover,
Vallis discloses that the brush attachment extends across the
housing opening or outlet (14); that is, across the structure or
rim defining the opening (see, e.g., column 1, lines 41-49 of
Vallis), a brush carrier (1) that is semi-cylindrical (see column
2, lines 11-15 of Vallis), and air orifices (4) located between
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007