Appeal No. 1999-0212
Application No. 08/230,526
The appellants argue that the statements in column 8 of
Guthrie teach away from removable attachment of mouthpiece to
frame. We do not agree, for as we interpret these passages,
removal of the device from an intubated or sedated patient is
facilitated not because the mouthpiece is permanently attached
to the frame, but simply because it is attached in some
fashion. Regarding the Gill device, it clearly is more
complex than that of the appellants or Guthrie. The question
is, however, whether Gill would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art making the mouthpiece removable from
the frame in this type of device, which we answer in the
affirmative.
It is our conclusion that the combined teachings of
Guthrie and Gill establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with regard to the subject matter recited in claim 1, and we
therefore will sustain the rejection.
The appellants have not provided arguments directed to
the separate patentability of any of the other claims, but
have merely listed the elements recited in each (Brief, pages
6-9), concluding with the statement that “Guthrie does not
teach or suggest the claimed features” (Brief, page 9). This
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007