Appeal No. 2004-1009
Application No. 09/785,382 Page 10
As a final point, we note that appellants have not furnished
any evidence establishing unexpected results for the claimed hair
dryer apparatus.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 and 3-5
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Vallis; to
reject claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Vallis in view of Weiss; to reject claim 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vallis in view of Scivoletto;
to reject claims 7 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Vallis in view of Barr and Sampson; to reject
claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Vallis in view of Braulke; to reject claim 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vallis in view of Barr,
Sampson and Braulke; and to reject claims 8-10 and 12-14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vallis under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007