Appeal No. 2003-1340 Page 3
Application No. 10/072,247
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Claim 1
An endo-tracheal tube retainer used to facilitate the removal of a
laryngeal mask of the type used to facilitate lung ventilation and the
insertion of endo-tracheal tubes or related medical instruments through a
patient’s laryngeal opening, said laryngeal mask being removed from a
patient’s oropharynx without dislodging any inserted endo-tracheal tubes
or related medical instruments passing through the laryngeal mask into
the patient’s tracheal tube, said endo-tracheal tube retainer comprising:
a solid semi-rigid stylet rod having proximal and distal ends; and
a connection adapter tapered from a proximal end of said
connection adapter to a distal end of said connection adapter for secure
insertion within a range of endo-tracheal tubes, said adapter being
secured to said distal end of said solid stylet rod.
The Rejection Under The First Paragraph Of Section 112
This rejection is based upon the premise that the specification “fails to specifically
teach [a] solid stylet rod, which is recited in claim 1. It is the examiner’s position that
while “there is enablement for a rod in the specification . . . there is no enablement as to
whether the rod is solid or hollow” (Answer, page 3). The appellant points out that the
term “rod” is used throughout the specification, and argues that the common definition
of “rod” is “a slender bar” and that a “bar” is “a solid block of material” that is usually
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007