Appeal No. 1998-2029 Page 11
Application No. 08/258,643
After the scope and content of the prior art are
determined, the differences between the prior art and the
claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere
Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
The examiner ascertained (answer, pp. 5 & 6) that the
only difference between Idris and claims 1, 2, 4-6, 10 and 11
was that Idris lacked means for detachably sealing the top
edge of the pouch 26 (e.g., the closure means of claim 1; the
sealing step of claim 10). The examiner then determined that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to take the teachings of Morris (i.e., to seal the fluid
collection bag) and apply them to the disclosed device of
Idris, in order to prevent contamination of the patient as
suggested implicitly by Morris. We agree.
The appellant argues that neither Idris or Morris
suggests a device having a pouch capable of being sealed in a
fluid tight manner to allow disposal of the drape. We do not
agree.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007