Appeal No. 2007-0999
Application No. 10/600,280
a positive engagement of a stethoscope head within the housing to force it
into engagement with the absorbent pad.” (Br. 13.)
However, in Sigler’s disinfectant container, a pacifier is “pushed” into
the slit, making contact between the pacifier and sponge surfaces (Col. 3, ll.
4-7). We think it is reasonable that the slit could accommodate at least a
portion of the stethoscope head, meeting the claim limitation. Appellants’
argument that Sigler and Briggs only describe placing the item “loosely” in
the decontamination chamber is not persuasive because the “removably
engaging” is not so limited. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection, but
designate it as a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) over
Sigler alone because Briggs is unnecessary to reach all the limitations of the
claims.
Claims 22 and 23
Claims 22 is a method claim. Appellants’ arguments for these claims
are the same as those addressed already for claim 1. Accordingly, for the
reasons set forth supra, we affirm the rejection of claims 22 and 23, but
designate it as a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) over
Sigler alone because Briggs is unnecessary to reach all the limitations of the
claims.
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013