Appeal No. 96-1391
Application 08/170,503
undone would cause a very rapid reduction in compressive pressure.
Accordingly, we conclude that claims 1 and 4 are
anticipated by Sconce, and will sustain rejection (1).
Rejection (2)
The examiner asserts that the subject matter recited
in claims 2 and 3 would have been obvious over Sconce in view
of Byrd because (supplemental answer, p. 2):
Since [sic] the Byrd reference
recognizes that cuffs positioned on a
patient become contaminated with bacterial
colonizations (see column 1, lines 11-23).
In view of this recognition, it is the
Examiner’s position that it would have been
obvious to one skilled in the art to
provide the Sconce device with a sterile
surface to prevent contamination of the
device. The provision of a sterile surface
would not require the use of the Byrd
protective cover, but merely the provision
of sterile overlying sheets.
We note that on pages 9 to 10 of their brief,
appellants argue:
Moreover, the Examiner has ignored the
definition of a “packaging element” in
Claim 2 and the specific orientation of
elements in that packaging element defined
in Claim 3. These features are not found
in Sconce. Instead, the cited reference
shows the thermal elements (64) alone to be
packaged within pockets on the interior
surface of the air bladder. The air
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007