Appeal No. 2006-0661
Application No. 10/358,027
The examiner provides a comprehensive response on pages 3 through 5
of the answer. The examiner identifies that the rejection relies upon Ichida to
teach the H202 vapor detector and Colvin for a teaching housings for sterilization.
See page 4 of the answer. Further, the examiner finds that Colvin teaches that
the advantage of portability,
“the positioning of sensors within the chamber, especially by retrofitting,
can however, create further problem areas for future concern.” (column 3,
lines 5-11). Colvin is referring to US Patent 4,372,916 that teaches only
temperature and pressure sensing devices apparently fixedly mounted
(not expressly by retrofitting) within a sterilization chamber.
Additionally, on page 5 of the answer, the examiner provides two additional
reasons why one would be motivated to modify Ichida’s device to make it
portable. The examiner asserts that:
The portable sensors do not need wire intrusions through the chamber
wall which could be a source of leak and leaking would be a bad thing in
any kind of vapour sterilization chamber. The portable sensor unit may be
moved to any position in the chamber where sterilization is insufficient.
This too would appear to apply to either a chemical or steam sterilization
chamber where chemical and steam vapors obey the laws of fluid
dynamics.
We concur with the examiner. Our reviewing court stated in In re Lee,
277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1433, that when making an
obviousness rejection based on combination, “there must be some motivation,
suggestion or teaching of the desirability of making the specific combination that
was made by Applicant” (quoting In re Dance, 160 F.3d 1339, 1343, 48 USPQ2d
1635, 1637 (Fed. Cir. 1998)) “The motivation, suggestion or teaching may come
explicitly from statements in the prior art, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007