Appeal No. 2003-1548 Page 2
Application No. 08/786,957
obtained from a reading of claim 1, which is reproduced in the opinion section of this
decision.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references in rejecting the
appealed claims:
McGrail 4,584,998 Apr. 29, 1986
Lee 4,672,974 Jun. 16, 1987
The sole rejection before us for review is as follows:
Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
McGrail in view of Lee.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 24) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection and to
the brief (Paper No. 23) for the appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
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. For the reasons
which follow, we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, reads as follows:
1. An endotracheal tube for patient ventilation and for
measuring airway pressure comprising:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007