Appeal No. 2007-3253
Application 10/733,414
A diffuser for allowing air to exit in order to dry a surface of a user’s
body;
movement means for moving the diffuser over a wide range of angles
in order to dry different parts of the surface; and
control means for sending instructions to the movement means in
order to control the movement of the movement means over the wide range
of angles.
The Examiner relies on the evidence in these references:
Jones US 5,822,878 Oct. 20, 1998
Chan US 5,857,263 Jan. 12, 1999
Bahman US 5,970,622 Oct. 26, 1999
Aisenberg US 6,038,786 Mar. 21, 2000
Appellant requests review of the following grounds of rejection
advanced on appeal (Br. 7):
claims 1 through 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Jones (Answer 3);
claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jones in view of
Aisenberg (Id. 5);
claims 7, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jones
(Id.);
claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jones in view of
Bahman (Id. 6); and
claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jones in view of
Chan (Id.).
Appellant argues the claims in the first and third grounds of rejection
as a group (Br. 8-9 and 10-11). Thus, we decide this appeal based on claims
1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 11, and 12 as representative of the grounds of rejection and
Appellants’ groupings of claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2005).
The issues in this appeal are whether the Examiner has carried the
burden of establishing a prima facie case in the grounds of rejection
advanced on appeal.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013