Appeal No. 2007-0999
Application No. 10/600,280
§ 103, but because the claims depend on claim 1, we designate it as a new
ground of rejection.
Claim 20
Claims 20 further comprises “an indicator compound for indicating
that the medical apparatus has been contacted by said decontaminating
compound.” The Examiner argues that
it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary
skill in the art to include indicator means identifying whether or
not the disinfectant had contacted the stethoscope to assure the
user that disinfection had occurred, and that disinfectant was
still available for use, the conventionality of such is well
recognized as evidenced by the use of iodine or betadine
compounds which leave residual coloration identifying use.
(Answer 5-6.)
Appellants assert that neither Briggs nor Sigler describes the
advantage of an indicator compound (Br. 13), but do not address the
Examiner’s assertion that a conventional disinfectant, such as iodine or
betadine, would leave a color residue after use, inherently fulfilling the
claimed requirement. Because we find the Examiner’s position reasonable,
and because Appellants did not provide arguments to rebut it, we affirm the
rejection of claim 20. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 20
under § 103, but because it depends on claim 1, we designate it as a new
ground of rejection.
Claim 21
Claim 21 recites that the “housing is dimensional to receive the head
of the stethoscope.” Appellants argue that claim 21 “points out the need for
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013