Appeal No. 97-0082
Application No. 07/993,718
“molded about” the interconnection 30 in view of the teachings of
the secondary references to Bales and Kalt. Therefore, we will
not sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
based on the combined teachings of Ranford, Bales and Kalt.
Treating now the rejection of claims 8 and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ranford in view of
Bales and Kalt, the examiner is of the opinion that it would have
been obvious to make the neck flange of Ranford, as modified by
Bales, of transparent polymers in view of the teachings of Kalt.
On the other hand, the appellants contend:
Ranford et al notes in column 3, lines 18-21 that “The
openings 31 traverse the junction between the flange
portions 30 and the sleeve portion 29 to permit better
visual inspection of the stoma site.” In other words,
Ranford et al leaves bigger gaps in the neck flange so
that visual inspection of the stoma site can be
accomplished. If the neck flange were transparent,
such measures would not be necessary. Therefore, it is
clear that Ranford et al did not consider, or suggest,
and actually teaches away from the use of transparent
materials for the neck flange. [See the paragraph
bridging pages 18 and 19 of the amended reply brief.]
Such contentions are not persuasive. The mere fact that Ranford
alone does not suggest transparent materials is not dispositive
inasmuch as the test for obviousness is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young, supra, and In re
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007