Appeal No. 2007-0999
Application No. 10/600,280
Claims 5 and 6
Claim 5 further requires the device to comprise “additional means for
attaching” the housing to the medical device.
The Examiner asserts that the hook attached to Sigler’s disinfectant
container “is fully capable of functioning as recited in apparatus claims 5
and 6.” (Answer 7.) Appellants contend that the claimed attaching structure
is advantageous because enables it to be attached to the medical device when
in use (Br. 8, 10). We find that the Examiner has the better argument. As
discussed supra, we do not interpret the phrase “for attaching said housing to
said medical apparatus” to confer a structural limitation to the attaching
means. Appellants’ arguments relate to the convenience of the attaching
means when the device is in use; they do not distinguish the structure, itself,
from the structure described by Sigler. Accordingly, we affirm the
rejection, but designate it as a new ground under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over
Sigler alone for the reasons articulated supra on p. 7 for claim 1.
Claims 12-19
Claims 12-19 are directed to particular decontaminating compounds in
combination with an absorbent pad that is engaged to the device (Br. 8).
The Examiner asserts that both Briggs and Sigler teach that any known
sterilizing/disinfecting agent is acceptable for use in their devices (Answer
5). Appellants do not rebut the Examiner’s findings, but only argue that
“Briggs does not have an absorbent pad.” (Br. 8.)
We find the Examiner’s rejection to be reasonable and supported by
the evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 12-19 under
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013