Appeal 2007-1885
Application 11/000,309
art, the examiner could then properly rely, as put forth by the solicitor, on a
conclusion of obviousness ‘from common knowledge and common sense of
the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion
in a particular reference.’”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 1406-07, 160
USPQ 809, 811-812 (CCPA 1969) (“[I]t is proper to take into account not
only specific teachings of the references but also the inferences which one
skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. . .”). The
analysis supporting obviousness, however, should be made explicit and
should “identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary
skill in the art to combine the elements” in the manner claimed. KSR, 127
S.Ct. at 1731, 82 USPQ2d at 1389.
As evidence of obviousness of the claimed subject matter under § 103,
the Examiner has relied on the disclosures of Petersen and Suzuki (Answer
4-7).
Petersen discloses an isolator system having a sterile work chamber
(2) in which a sterile condition is maintained, and a manipulating means (5)
for performing various operations (col. 5, l. 66 to col. 6, l. 10). Gas is
supplied to the sterile work chamber and separate gas is supplied to the
manipulating means in order to ensure that the pressure inside the
manipulating means is reduced relative to the pressure inside the sterile work
chamber (col. 8, ll. 31-49). Gas is introduced to a first chamber (2) by an
inlet (6) connected to a supply (7). Petersen discloses various sterilizing
gases may be introduced to the chamber in the first chamber (col. 14. ll. 52-
67). Petersen teaches that a gas supply unit (18) supplies a gas from a
second chamber (4) to the interior of the manipulating means (col. 19. ll. 21-
54). Gas moves from an inlet (17) through a passageway (4) formed along
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013