Appeal No. 2006-0661
Application No. 10/358,027
For the foregoing reasons we find that the references present ample
evidence to demonstrate motivation to combine the references.
On page 7 of the brief, appellants assert that Ichida relates to sterilizing
objects such as pharmaceutical basic materials, food packaging etc, and Colvin
relates to sterilizing reusable medical supplies such as dressings, gowns, drapes
etc. As such, appellants reason “[t]hese fields are so distinguishable that one of
ordinary skill in the art would not have looked to the one to solve a problem in the
other.” We are not persuaded by this argument. As the examiner states on page
8 of the answer, “both are intended for sterilizing of medical supplies.” Further,
we note that Ichida is not limited to sterilizing the objects listed by appellants,
Ichida teaches that when facilities are sterilized, interior items therein are
sterilized such as beds, desks and chairs (and assumedly anything else in the
facility). As such, we find that Ichida and Colvin are analogous they teach
monitoring the sterilization process in an enclosed space.
Similarly, we are not persuaded by appellants arguments directed to the
difference between steam sterilization and H202 vapor sterilization. While we
recognize that the sensors and underlying sterilization processes are different,
we do not consider the differences to deter one skilled in the art from considering
both technologies in finding a housing for the sensor. That is, we consider the
two references to be analogous and find no evidence that would show that one
skilled in the art would be discouraged by using the housing of Colvin for the H202
vapor sterilization monitoring device of Ichida.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007