Appeal No. 2007-0999
Application No. 10/600,280
“A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different
field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the
matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an
inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” Clay, 966 F.2d at 659, 23
USPQ2d at 1061. In this case, Sigler addresses a similar problem to the one
confronted by Appellants: to sterilize the surface of a device in contact with
a human body. Consequently, we find it reasonably pertinent to Appellants’
field of endeavor.
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites that the “structure” of claim 1 comprises an
“interlocking structure for engaging a portion of said medical apparatus.”
Appellants separately argued this claim, asserting that the “interlocking
structure securely retains the medical device, which the Briggs device would
not.” (Br. 7.)
We find that the Sigler’s sponge slit would act as an “interlocking
structure for engaging a portion of aid medical device” because the pacifier
nipple would fit into the sponge slit.5 Accordingly, we affirm the rejection,
but designate it as a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) over
Sigler alone.
5 Appellants argue that “engaging” means “interlock.” (Br. 11.) As we have
adopted this definition, it is not clear how claim 2 further limits claim 1.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013