Appeal No. 2005-0980 13
Application No. 09/818,228
matter of claims 7 and 19 within the meaning of Section 103(a). Accordingly, we affirm the
examiner’s decision rejecting claims 7 and 19 under Section 103(a).
REJECTION BASED ON LETHI AND DANIELL
As evidence of obviousness of the subject matter defined by claims 9, 10, 21, 22,
26 and 27 under Section 103(a), the examiner relies on the combined disclosures of Lethi
and Daniell. See the Answer page 10. The disclosure of Lethi is discussed above. As
acknowledged by the examiner (Answer, page 10), Lethi does not teach “a humidifier
controlling the humidity of the gas delivered through the nasal catheter.”
To remedy this deficiency, the examiner relies on the disclosure of Daniell. See the
Answer, page 10. The examiner finds (Answer, page 10) and the appellant does not
dispute (Brief, page 12) that Daniell teaches “a humidifier for humidifying the gases
delivered to the patient in order to prevent dehydration of the airways and nasal passages
of the patient.” Specifically, we note that Daniell states (column 2, lines 4-10):
in order to orally deliver gases to a patient, it is very important that the gases
are sufficiently humidified at all times. If not, parts of the mouth can dry out
within very short times...causing discomfort. In other parts of the mouth
salivary glands ...[can be] over stimulated causing excess saliva, swallowing
difficulties and further discomfort.
Given the above teachings, we concur with the examiner that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been led to employ a humidifier to control the humidity of the gas
delivered through the nasal catheter of the type described in Lethi, motivated by a
reasonable expectation of avoiding various discomforts associated with “dehydration of the
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007