Appeal No. 2005-0980 6
Application No. 09/818,228
said to create “an air-tight obstruction2 between the nasopharynx and the rest of the
patient’s breathing passage.” See, e.g., the Brief, page 8. Implicit in the appellant’s
argument is that the claimed functional limitation relating to restricting a patient’s
spontaneous respiration precludes a nasal catheter having an inflatable cuff, such as the
one described in Lethi. We do not agree.
We initially note that the functional language in question limits the claimed nasal
catheter to the one that cannot restrict the patient’s spontaneous respiration through the
patient’s nasopharynx or the patient’s oropharynx as urged by the examiner. Thus, we
concur with the examiner’s determination at page 12 of the Answer that the functional
language does not preclude Lethi’s nasal catheter which does not restrict the patient’s
spontaneous respiration through the patient’s oropharynx. As pointed out by the appellant
(Brief, page 8), the inflatable cuff portion of Lethi’s nasal catheter is located only at the
nasopharynx.
Even were we to determine that the above functional language somehow precludes
a nasal catheter obstructing the nasopharynx, such as the one taught by Lethi, our
conclusion would not be altered. As pointed out by the examiner (Answer, page 12),
Lethi’s nasal catheter has a cuff which can be deflated (not blocking the nasopharynx) or
inflated (blocking the nasopharynx). In other words, Lathi’s nasal catheter is capable of
2 The appellant’s argument appears to indicate that the claim language “restricting” is defined as
“an air-tight obstruction”.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007