Appeal No. 2005-0980 9
Application No. 09/818,228
To remedy this deficiency, the examiner relies on the disclosure of Bowden. See
the Answer, page 8. The examiner finds (Id.) that Bowden teaches “a plurality of markings
[to a catheter for supplying air/oxygen to a patient] for a variety of positions for different
sized patients or children and for determining proper insertion [of the catheter].” See also
Bowden, column 4, lines 42-45. The appellant does not dispute this finding. See the
Brief, pages 10-11.
Given the above teachings, we concur with the examiner that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have been led to provide a plurality of marking to the nasal catheter of the
type described in Lethi, motivated by a reasonable expectation of effectively adjusting the
length of the nasal catheter inserted to a patient using the markings. This is especially true
in this case since it was known at the time of the invention the importance of the location of
the nasal catheter and the adjustment of the length of the nasal catheter based on, inter
alia, the size of a patient. See Lethi, column 1, lines 13-20 and the specification, page 4.
The appellant appears to argue that the plurality of markings taught in Bowden are
not used for cutting a nasal catheter and that Lethi’s nasal catheter is not appropriate for
cutting. See the Brief, page 10. This argument is not well taken.
In the first place, we find this argument to be irrelevant inasmuch as it is not based
on limitations appearing in claim 3 on appeal. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 213
USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982) (“Many of appellant’s arguments fail from the outset because, as
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007