Appeal No. 96-2270
Application 08/073,108
which would overcome the deficiencies already noted with respect
to Keller.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of (1) claims 14, 22, 31, 32, 35 and 37-40
based on the teachings of Keller alone, (2) claims 15-17 based on
the combined teachings of Keller and Mertens and (3) claim 36
based on the combined teachings of Keller and Baxter.
Rejection (3)
According to the examiner:
Mertens does not disclose the container (2) to
provide indica that the container has been cleaned
comprising a punched tab in the container.
Baxter shows it is old and well known within the
art to the ordinarily skilled artisan (lines 35-45 of
the second column of page 3) to provide indicia of the
container status with a punched tab portion.
It would have been obvious to said artisan to
modify the container of Martens per the above cited
teaching of Baxter for the same reason. [See the Office
action dated March 28, 1994 (Paper No. 7), pages 4 and
5.]
Independent claim 23 expressly requires a medical suction
system comprising a suction canister having a suction port and a
patient port. There is, however, absolutely nothing in the
combined teachings of Mertens and Baxter which would suggest such
an arrangement. Mertens has a single opening 2a in the top of a
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007