Appeal No. 2005-2101 6
Application No. 09/922,504
merely set forth broad objectives to be achieved by the invention therein and do not
describe, discuss or mandate a “control unit” like that defined in the claims on appeal.
For the foregoing reasons, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 4 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Bird.
Concerning the rejection of dependent claims 5 and 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Bird, we again point to the failure of Bird to disclose or
suggest a “control unit” like that defined in the claims on appeal. Moreover, with regard to
the examiner’s reliance on Figures 24 and 32 of Bird (answer, pages 3-4), we share
appellant’s position as set forth in the reply brief that those figures of Bird’s drawings are
associated with embodiments of the invention distinct from that seen in Figure 1 of Bird
and which do not even show or rely on an expiratory metering valve (143). Thus, we will
not sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007