Appeal No. 2004-1009
Application No. 09/785,382 Page 9
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In this
regard, we note that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized the storage convenience and electrical connection
advantages of furnishing such a blow dryer mounting device in
dressing rooms or bathrooms, especially for commercial
applications, such as hotel accommodations. Consequently, on
this record, we will sustain the examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of
claims 7 and 16.
Claims 15 and 17
In addition to the other features of claims 15 and 17 that
have been addressed above, claims 15 and 17 require a spray
element, trigger and vent apertures for proving a fluid mist.
Concerning these latter features, the examiner has turned to
Braulke (drawing figures 3-5) to show that providing a hair dryer
apparatus with those items for supplying fluid (steam) for
wetting the hair to aid in the styling thereof is well known.
Consequently, based on the combined teachings of the references
that are applied in the separate rejections of claims 15 and 17,
we agree with the examiner that a prima facie case of obviousness
has been established thereby, which have not been successfully
rebutted by appellants’ arguments for reasons stated above and in
the answer.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007