Ex parte SUDGE - Page 2


                    Appeal No. 1998-2521                                                                                                   
                    Application No. 08/184,212                                                                                             

                            nasal insertion having radii within a predetermined range, with opposing                                       
                            interlocking extremities accommodating said differing tube radii, and with                                     
                            opposing attaching means integral with  said clamp means for affixing a harness                                
                            means.                                                                                                         
                                    37.  A medical tube holder apparatus comprising a one-piece flexible                                   
                            elongated strip to engage frictionally about substantially the entire circumferential                          
                            cross-section of medical tubes for oral and nasal insertion, with opposing                                     
                            interlocking extremities of said strip and with opposing attaching means integral                              
                            with said strip for affixing a harness means, wherein the said strip, exclusive of                             
                            said interlocking extremities and said attaching means, is less than one centimeter                            
                            thick.                                                                                                         
                            As disclosed, the interlocking extremities are in the form of serrated male and                                
                    female locking components 2, 3.  The attaching means are in the form of ears 4.                                        
                            A complete copy of the appealed claims is found in the revised appendix (Paper                                 
                    No. 20 filed on September 8, 1999) to the appeal brief.  According to the remarks on                                   
                    page 2 of the examiner’s supplemental answer (Paper No. 23 mailed December 6, 2000),                                   
                    the revised appendix contains a correct copy of the appealed claims.                                                   
                            The following references are relied upon by the examiner as evidence of                                        
                    obviousness in support of his rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:                                                        
                    Cheng                           2,908,269                      Oct. 13, 1959                                         
                    Crosbie                         5,069,206                      Dec.   3, 1991                                        
                    Austin                          5,076,269                      Dec. 31, 1991                                         
                    Ohio Chemical Catalog, “White Opaque Plastic Endotracheal Tubes,”  page 40,                                            
                    (Date unknown)1                                                                                                        
                            The grounds of rejection are as follows:2                                                                      
                            1. Claims 1 through 9, 19 through 24 and 37 through 48 stand rejected under                                    


                                                                                                                                           
                    1 Appellant does not argue that this catalog is not prior art.                                                         
                    2 In the supplemental answer (Paper No. 23 mailed December 5, 2000) responding to our remand of                        
                    July 17, 2000 (Paper No. 22), the examiner withdrew the rejection of the appealed claims under the first               
                    paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, leaving only the § 103 rejections.                                                       

                                                                    2                                                                      



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007