Appeal No. 2006-0661
Application No. 10/358,027
Rejection at Issue
Claims 9, 10 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Ichida in view of Colvin. Throughout the opinion we make reference
to the brief and the answer for the respective details thereof.
Opinion
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants’ arguments set forth in
the brief along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
examiner’s rejection and the arguments of appellants and the examiner, and for
the reasons stated infra we sustain the examiner’s rejections of claims 9, 10 and
13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants argue, on page 6 of the brief, that the references provide no
motivation to be modified as asserted by the examiner. Appellants assert that
Colvin’s teaching of a steam sterilizer does not teach or suggest that the device
can be adapted to monitor another sterilization chemical such as H202 vapor.
Similarly, appellants assert that Ichida’s teaching is of a stationary H202 vapor
monitoring device and provides no suggestion to re-designed the device to be
capable of being in a self-contained portable structure.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007