Appeal No. 2003-1548 Page 6
Application No. 08/786,957
modification of McGrail suggested by Lee would not result in the invention of claim 1.
Specifically, Lee teaches placing the pressure-measuring transducer, which forms at
least part of the structure which corresponds to “pressure measuring apparatus for
measuring airway pressure”1 recited in appellant’s claim 1, at the “back” side of the
diaphragm, near the distal end of the tube, and thus cannot be considered to be at a
“location remote from the chamber,” as called for in claim 1, the chamber being that
portion of the lumen in the vicinity of the diaphragm.
For the foregoing reasons, the combined teachings of McGrail and Lee are not
sufficient to have suggested the subject matter of independent claim 1 or claims 2-8
depending from claim 1. It follows that we shall not sustain the examiner’s rejection.
1 Lee’s remote electronics package 20 does not itself measure pressure, but rather simply
receives and processes an electrical signal from the pressure-measuring transducer.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007