Appeal No. 96-2270
Application 08/073,108
for communication with a patient;
(b) providing a cleaning station for removably
supporting said suction canister and for automatically
draining and cleaning said suction canister;
(c) placing said suction canister in communication with
said cleaning station; and
(d) activating said cleaning station so that said
cleaning station drains the fluid from the interior of
said suction canister and cleans the interior of said
suction canister.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Baxter 2,004,027 Jun. 04, 1935
Keller 2,073,746 Mar. 16, 1937
Mertens et al. (Mertens) 5,033,492 Jul. 23, 1991
The claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in
the following manner:3
(1) Claims 14, 22, 31, 32, 35 and 37-40 as being unpatent-
able over Keller;
(2) Claims 15-17 as being unpatentable over Keller in view
of Mertens;
(3) Claims 23-25 and 34 as being unpatentable over Mertens
in view of Baxter; and
3Page 3 of the answer makes reference to both Paper Nos. 7
and 11 for an explanation of these rejections. Such a procedure
by the examiner is totally improper and inappropriate. Manual of
Pat. Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1208 (6th ed., Rev. 3 Jul.
1997) expressly provides that incorporation by reference may be
made only to a single other action.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007