Appeal No. 2005-0980 11
Application No. 09/818,228
examiner (Answer, page 9), Lethi does not teach that its nasal catheter further comprises a
radio-opaque strip.
To remedy this deficiency, the examiner relies on the disclosure of Brain. See the
Answer, page 9. The examiner finds (Id.) that Brain teaches “ the use of a radio-opaque
strip [in a catheter (tube)] to allow easy identification of the location of a[n] [air/oxygen]
tube [inserted in a patient].” See also Brain, column 6, lines 1-8. The appellant does not
dispute this finding. See the Brief, page 11.
Given the above teachings, we concur with the examiner that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been led to provide such radio-opaque strip in the nasal catheter of the
type described in Lethi, motivated by a reasonable expectation of improving the placement
of the nasal catheter. As acknowledged by the appellant (specification, page 4), it is well
known to one of ordinary skill in the art the importance of placing the nasal catheter in an
appropriate location, which would not cause serious complications to patients. See also
Lethi, column 1, lines 17-20.
Thus, notwithstanding the appellant’s arguments to the contrary, we determine that
the preponderance of evidence weighs most heavily in favor of obviousness of the subject
matter of claims 4 and 17 within the meaning of Section 103(a). Accordingly, we affirm the
examiner’s decision rejecting claims 4 and 17 under Section 103(a).
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007