Ex Parte Bateman

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2017

11886587 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
0119/0070 8170
EXAMINER
LOUIS, LATOYA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3771
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/886,587 09/18/2007
135866 7590 03/29/2017
LAW OFFICE OF LOUIS WOO
717 NORTH FAYETTE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
Timothy Bateman
03/29/2017 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIMOTHY BATEMAN
Appeal 2015-007300
Application 11/886,5871
Technology Center 3700
Before TONI R. SCHEINER, DONALD E. ADAMS, and
ERICA A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This Appeal2 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involves claims 9—22 (App.
Br. 5).3 Examiner entered rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Smiths Group PLC” (App.
Br. 3).
2 This is the second Appeal of this Application {see App. Br. 4). A Decision
in the first Appeal, Appeal 2012-002172, affirming rejections of then
pending claims 1, 2, and 4—8 was entered December 11, 2013.
3 “Claims 1-8 have been cancelled” (App. Br. 5).
Appeal 2015-007300
Application 11/886,587
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant discloses “tracheostomy tube assemblies of the kind
including an outer, tubular shaft having a bore extending along it for passage
of gas and an introducer inserted within the shaft, the assembly having a
passage extending along its length for receiving an elongate guide member”
(Spec. 1). Independent claims 9 and 16 are representative and reproduced
below:
9. A tracheostomy tube assembly comprising:
an outer, tubular shaft having a bore extending along it
for passage of gas, a distal end and a radially inwardly
projecting collar at the inner circumferential wall of the shaft;
and
an introducer inserted within the shaft to provide a
tapered tip to the assembly adapted to be used to introduce the
assembly through tracheal tissue of a patient during insertion of
the assembly into the trachea of the patient, the introducer
having a distal portion that is adapted to extend beyond the
distal end of the shaft, the distal portion of the introducer being
tapered towards a distal opening of a passage extending along
the length of the introducer adapted to receive an elongate guide
member, the introducer further having an annular shoulder
projecting outwardly from its outer circumferential wall;
wherein when the introducer is fully inserted into the
shaft, the tapered distal portion of the introducer extends
beyond the distal end of the shaft to provide a projecting,
tapering nose that forms the tapered tip for the assembly for
introducing and guiding the assembly through the tracheal
tissue during insertion to the trachea;
wherein one end of the elongate guide member is
threaded through the distal opening of the introducer to the
passage through the introducer so that the introducer is guided
by and can slide along the elongate guide member, and another
end of the elongate member is adapted to be located through an
opening at the neck of the patient into the trachea of the patient;
2
Appeal 2015-007300
Application 11/886,587
wherein the radially projecting collar at the shaft and the
annular shoulder at the introducer are engaged with each other
to prevent rearward displacement of the shaft along the
introducer as first the tapered distal portion of the introducer
and then the shaft are guided by the elongate guide member into
the trachea of the patient; and
wherein after the shaft is properly located in the trachea
of the patient, the introducer is removed rearwardly from the
shaft so that the bore of the shaft is free to provide a gas
passage to the trachea.
(App. Br. 27.) Claims 10-15 depend from claim 9 (App. Br. 27—28).
16. A tracheostomy tube assembly comprising a shaft having a
distal end and a bore extending along the shaft, an introducer
matingly fitted into the bore with a tapered distal portion
extending beyond the distal end of the shaft toward a distal
opening at the introducer that opens into a passage that extends
along the length of the introducer, the opening dimensioned to
allow one end of an elongate member to be threaded
therethrough into the passage so that the introducer can
guidedly slide along the elongate member, the tapered distal
portion of the introducer including a tapering nose adapted to
act as a tip for the assembly to assist in introducing the
assembly though tracheal tissue of a patient and the inserting of
the shaft into the trachea of the patient after another end of the
elongate guide member is inserted into the trachea of the
patient, a radially inwardly projecting collar at the shaft and an
outwardly projecting annular shoulder at the introducer engage
to each other to cause the shaft to follow the movement of the
introducer when the assembly is being guided by the elongate
member into the trachea of the patient, the introducer being
removable rearwardly from the shaft so that the bore of the
shaft is opened to provide a gas passage to the trachea after the
shaft is properly located in the trachea of the patient.
{Id. at 28.) Claims 17—22 depend from claim 16 (App. Br. 29).
3
Appeal 2015-007300
Application 11/886,587
The claims stand rejected as follows:
Claims 9—11, 13—18, and 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Crandall,4 Shelden,5 and
Weinstein.6
Claims 12 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Crandall, Shelden, Weinstein, and
Toye.7
Claims 9—11, 13, 16—18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Miles8 and Crandall.
Claims 12 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Miles, Crandall, and Toye.
Claims 14 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Miles, Crandall, and Theis.9
Claims 15 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Miles, Crandall, and Weinstein.
ISSUE
Does the preponderance of evidence relied upon by Examiner support
a conclusion of obviousness?
4 Crandall et al., US 4,315,505, issued Feb. 16, 1982
5 Shelden et al., US 2,991,787, issued July 11, 1961.
6 Weinstein, US 5,217,005, issued June 8, 1993.
7 Toye, US 6,382,209 Bl, issued May 7, 2002.
8 Miles et al., US 5,188,100, issued Feb. 23, 1993.
9 Theis et al., US 5,443,064, issued Aug. 22, 1995.
4
Appeal 2015-007300
Application 11/886,587
FACTUAL FINDINGS (FF)
FF 1. Crandall “relates to tracheostomy tubes having an outer cannula and
a removable inner cannula, and, in particular, to a tracheostomy tube having
a disposable inner cannula” (Crandall 1:11—14).
FF 2. Crandall’s Figure 1 is reproduced below:
36
“FIG. 1 is a perspective view of [Crandall’s] tracheostomy tube [] shown
completely assembled” (Crandall 3:30-31; see generally Ans. 2—3).
5
Appeal 2015-007300
Application 11/886,587
FF 3. Crandall’s Figure 2 is reproduced below:
.36
FIG 2
“FIG. 2 is a partial perspective view of [Crandall’s] tracheostomy tube with
the inner cannula partially removed” (Crandall 3:32—33; see generally Ans.
2-3).
FF 4. Crandall’s Figure 3 is reproduced below:
“FIG. 3 is a partial sectional view taken through the distal end of the inner
and outer cannulae” of Crandall’s tracheostomy tube (Crandall 3:34—35; see
generally Ans. 3).
6
Appeal 2015-007300
Application 11/886,587
FF 5. Crandall discloses a “cylindrical, arcuate outer cannula 12 []
comprised of a distal end 16 for insertion into the trachea of the patient
through an opening in the neck and a proximal end 18 remaining outside the
trachea” (Crandall 3:45—49).
FF 6. Crandall discloses an “inner cannula 14 [] inserted into the bore 26
of the outer cannula 12,” wherein
the inner cannula 14 runs the entire length of the outer cannula
12 so that its distal tip 38 is flush with or slightly beyond the
tapered necked-down portion 40 of the distal end 16 of the
outer cannula 12 and the connector 28 is securely releasably
attached to the proximal end 18 of the outer cannula 12.
Formed in the inner cannula 14 is a passageway 37 which
communicates with the opening 36 in the connector 28 to
permit air to flow into the trachea.
(Crandall 4:1—2 and 12—21; see generally Ans. 2—3.)
FF 7. Crandall discloses that “a raised annular section 42” is “[ljocated just
behind the tip 38 of the inner cannula 14,” wherein the raised annular section
42 is
comprised of, from front to rear, a tapered, forwardly facing
sealing surface 44, a non-tapered surface 46, and a tapered
rearwardly facing surface 48. The sealing surface 44 is ffustro-
conical in shape and engages the interior surface 50 of the
necked-down portion 40 on the distal end 16 of the outer
cannula 12 to form a tight air seal between the outer cannula 12
and inner cannula 14. This sealing surface 44 is sufficiently
tapered so that at least one portion has an outer diameter which
is greater than the inside diameter of the opening 52 of the outer
cannula 12.
(Crandall 4:22—36; see generally Ans. 2—3.)
FF 8. Crandall discloses that
the engagement between the inner cannula 14 and the outer
cannula 12 [] serves as a stop device to prevent the tip 38 of the
7
Appeal 2015-007300
Application 11/886,587
inner cannula 14 from extending substantially beyond the very
end 54 of the outer cannula 12. Moreover, the sloping interior
surface 50 of the necked-down portion 40 of the outer cannula
12 cooperates to form this stop device since it presents a large,
relatively rigid obstacle to the raised portion 42 on the inner
cannula 14 which prohibits substantial protrusion of the tip 38.
Furthermore, the location and length of the sealing surface 44
on the inner cannula 14 and the size of opening 52 on the outer
cannula 12, which together form the air seal and stop devices of
[Crandall’s] invention, are such that the tip 38 will be flush
with the end 54 of the outer cannula if the interior surface 50
contacts the sealing surface 44 near its lower edge. If, on the
other hand, the interior surface 50 contacts the upper edge of
the sealing surface 44, the tip 38 will extend only slightly, e.g.
about 0.050 inches, beyond the end 54 of the outer cannula.
Thus, the stop device of [CrandalFs] invention advantageously
regulates the position of the tip 38 within this narrow range,
thereby compensating for variations in overall length among the
present inner cannulae.
(Crandall 4:47—5:2; see generally Ans. 2—3.)
FF 9. CrandalFs “inner cannula 14 [] is easily attached to and removed
from the outer cannula 12 with exertion of little or no longitudinal force,
thereby preventing pain and discomfort to the patient” (Crandall 7:23—26).
FF 10. Examiner finds that Crandall fails to suggest a tracheostomy tube
assembly that comprises an inner cannula that is tapered at the distal end or
an assembly that “includes an elongate guide member extending and
threaded along the assembly such that the introducer can slide along the
elongate member while a distal end of the elongate member extends into the
trachea” (Ans. 3 and 4).
FF 11. Shelden
relates to surgical instruments and has particular reference to an
instrument frequently designated a tracheotome or tracheotomy
instrument which consists of an arcuate tube containing a knife -
8
Appeal 2015-007300
Application 11/886,587
like insert which can be injected into the throat or trachea to
make it possible for a person to breathe under conditions where
the upper portion of the throat might be stopped for any reason.
(Shelden 1:11-18.)
FF 12. Shelden’s Figure 6 is reproduced below:
“FIGURE 6 is a longitudinal sectional view of [Shelden’s] tube with a
removable insert or inner cannula applied therein” (Shelden 2:56—57).
FF 13. Shelden’s Figure 9 is reproduced below:
“FIGURE 9 is a perspective view of one of [Shelden’s] removable inner
cannulae” (Shelden 2:61—62).
9
Appeal 2015-007300
Application 11/886,587
FF 14. Shelden discloses that “[o]nce inserted into the trachea [],
[Shelden’s] tube 30 occupies the position shown in [Shelden’s] FIGURE 6.
While so located an inner canula or disposable tube 75 may be inserted. . . .
[T]he inner cannula [75] consists of a tubular portion 76 and an integral
flanged portion 77,” wherein
end 78 conforms to the inwardly depressed beveled interior of
the tube 30 at the end 32. The length of the tubular portion is
such that the beveled end 78 is substantially flush with the edge
of the beveled end 32 of the tube when the flanged portion 77
lies against the bottom of the plate 36. The flanged portion
fixes the position of the inner cannula when in position within
the tube and also facilitates grasping the inner cannula for
removal when replacement is needed.
(Shelden 4:53—56 and 63—74; see Ans. 3 (Shelden discloses “that the distal
end of the inner cannula is tapered”).)
FF 15. Weinstein discloses the use of a guidewire “to assist in guiding [a]
dilator [] and tube [] into [a] trachea” (Weinstein 4:14—17; see Ans. 4).
FF 16. Examiner relies on Toye to disclose “an extremely flexible ultra-
thinned wall tracheal tube [] such that it cannot support its own weight when
supported at one end” (Ans. 5, citing Toye 4:60-62, 5:20—22, and 6:3—7).
FF 17. Miles relates, inter alia, “to a tracheostomy kit including [] an
obturator and the method of replacing a tracheostomy tube using the
obturator and guide tube of [Miles’] invention” (Miles 1:6—13).
10
Appeal 2015-007300
Application 11/886,587
FF 18. Miles’ Figure 1 is reproduced below:
FIG. f
M
“FIG. 1 is a schematic representative rear view of a tracheostomy tube with
the specially constructed obturator of [Miles’] invention and a guide tube in
place for use in accordance with and as part of the present invention” (Miles
3:31-35).
FF 19. Miles’ Figure 3 is reproduced below:
“FIG. 3 is a longitudinal cross-section of the obturator of [Miles’] invention”
(Miles 3:39-40).
11
Appeal 2015-007300
Application 11/886,587
FF 20. Miles’
obturator 12 is substantially cylindrical and is made of a plastic
material sufficiently flexible to permit it to easily assume the
shape of the curved tracheostomy tube 20. The distal tip 18 of
the obturator 12 is rounded or olive-tipped. At the proximal
end of the obturator 12, there is disposed a flange 17.
(Miles 3:59-65.)
FF 21. Miles discloses that
[t]he length of the obturator 12 is specifically selected so that
when inserted into the tracheostomy tube 20 such that the
flange 17 of the obturator 12 abuts the flange 16 of the
tracheostomy tube 20 [] the rounded tip 18 will extend from the
distal end of the tube 20. Thus, the rounded tip 18 of the
obturator functions as an atraumatic guide tip to the distal end
of the tracheostomy tube and serves to guide the tube and
prevent tracheal damage which might otherwise be caused by
the distal edges of the tracheostomy tube 20.
(Miles 3:66-4:8.)
FF 22. Miles’
obturator 12 has a longitudinal opening 15 centrally disposed
therethrough. The central opening is large enough to allow a
guide tube 14 [] to pass therethrough. The guide tube 14 and
the central opening 15 must be sized so that the obturator 12
can easily slide over the guide tube 14 when the guide tube 14
is passed through the central opening 15.
(Miles 4:9-15.)
FF 23. Miles discloses a
procedure [] for replacing a tracheostomy tube which is already
in place on a patient, is made safe, and expedient by means of
the apparatus of [Miles’] invention. When the tracheostomy
tube 20 is in place in the patient with the cuff 30 inflated so as
to seal the trachea, a guide tube 14 is fed through the
tracheostomy tube 20 to be removed. The tube 14 is fed far
enough to leave a good length of the guide tube 14 in the
12
Appeal 2015-007300
Application 11/886,587
trachea when the tracheostomy tube 20 is removed. The cuff 30
is then deflated with an appropriate syringe. The tracheostomy
tube 20 is then removed over the guide tube 14 leaving the
guide tube 14 in place in the trachea to serve as a guide to the
existing opening to the trachea. An obturator 12 is inserted
within a new tracheostomy tube 20 such that obturator flange
17 abuts tracheostomy tube flange 16 and the rounded end 18 of
the obturator extends from the distal end of the tracheostomy
tube 20. The proximal end of the guide tube 14 is threaded
through the central opening 15 of the obturator 12 by means of
the tip 18 and the entire obturator 12—tracheostomy tube 20
assembly is fed over the guide tube 14 so as to be guided into
position through the existing opening in the trachea using guide
tube 14 as a guide. The rounded tip 18 of the obturator serves
to center the tracheostomy tube 20 within the tracheal lumen
and to guide it into place atraumatically. Once the obturator
tube 20 is secured in place, the obturator 12 and the guide tube
14 are removed from the tracheostomy tube 20. The cuff 30 is
then inflated and its position verified in a routine manner.
(Miles 4:24—54.)
FF 24. Examiner relies on Theis to disclose “a neck plate [] that is movable
along [a] shaft” (Ans. 8, citing Theis 2:5—16).
ANALYSIS
The combination of Crandall, Shelden, and Weinstein, with or without Toye:
Based on the combination of Crandall, Shelden, and Weinstein,
Examiner concludes that, at the time Appellants’ invention was made, it
would have been prima facie obvious to: “modify the inner and outer
cannula of Crandall to include beveled tapers as taught by Shelden to
provide enhanced injury prevention and secure fit” and “provide the tracheal
assembly of Crandall with a guide wire as taught by Weinstein to assist in
guiding the tracheal tube shaft into the trachea as disclosed in [] Weinstein”
(Ans. 3—4). In addition, based on the combination of Crandall, Shelden,
13
Appeal 2015-007300
Application 11/886,587
Weinstein, and Toye, Examiner concludes that, at the time Appellants’
invention was made, it would have been prima facie obvious “to modify the
shaft of Crandall with the ultra-flexible shaft of Toye to provide additional
comfort to a user” (Ans. 5). We are not persuaded.
Appellant’s claim 9 requires, inter alia, “an outer, tubular shaft . . .
and an introducer inserted within the shaft,” wherein “the introducer ha[s] a
distal portion that is adapted to extend beyond the distal end of the shaft,”
such that
when the introducer is fully inserted into the shaft, the tapered
distal portion of the introducer extends beyond the distal end of
the shaft to provide a projecting, tapering nose that forms the
tapered tip for the assembly for introducing and guiding the
assembly through the tracheal tissue during insertion to the
trachea.
(App. Br. 27). Similarly, Appellant’s claim 16 requires, inter alia,
a shaft having a distal end and a bore extending along the shaft,
an introducer matingly fitted into the bore with a tapered distal
portion extending beyond the distal end of the shaft toward a
distal opening at the introducer that opens into a passage that
extends along the length of the introducer,
wherein “the tapered distal portion of the introducer including a tapering
nose adapted to act as a tip for the assembly to assist in introducing the
assembly through the tracheal tissue of a patient” (App. Br. 28).
Crandall discloses that when an inner cannula is inserted into the bore
of the outer cannula, the distal tip of the inner cannula “is flush with or
[extends] slightly beyond the . . . distal end [] of the outer cannula” (FF 6).
In this regard, Crandall discloses that if the inner cannula does extend past
the distal tip of the outer cannula it “will extend only slightly, e.g., about
0.050 inches, beyond the end [] of the outer cannula” (FF 8). In addition,
14
Appeal 2015-007300
Application 11/886,587
Examiner recognizes that Crandall fails to suggest a tracheostomy tube
assembly that comprises an inner cannula that is tapered at the distal end and
relies on Shelden to make up for this deficiency in Crandall (FF 9).
Shelden discloses a tracheotomy instrument that comprises both an
outer and inner cannula, wherein both the outer and inner cannulas are
tapered (FF 14). Shelden discloses that when the inner cannula is disposed
within the outer cannula the distal tip of the inner cannula is “substantially
flush” with the distal tip of the outer cannula (id. ).
Thus, the combination of Crandall and Shelden suggests a device
comprising distally tapered inner and outer cannulas that are flush with one
another at the distal tip of the device or, in the alternative, a device wherein
the inner cannula extends about 0.050 inches beyond the distal tip of the
outer cannula. Examiner, however, failed to establish an evidentiary basis
on this record to support a conclusion that even if the inner cannula, of the
device suggested by the combination of Crandall and Shelden, extended
about 0.050 inches beyond the outer cannula, the inner cannula would have
been capable of performing the function of an introducer as required by
Appellant’s claimed invention (see FF 1—14; cf. App. Br. 14—19 (asserting
that the inner cannula disclosed by both Crandall and Shelden is not an
introducer as that term is used in Appellant’s claims and Specification)). In
this regard, Appellant contends that because
the distal tip of the inner cannula preferably should be flush
with the distal tip of the outer cannula and, at most extend only
slightly from the distal tip of the outer cannula, clearly indicates
that the inner cannula is not the means used to insert the
tracheostomy tube of Crandall into the trachea of the patient.
(App. Br. 12.) In addition, we recognize that, notwithstanding Examiner’s
contention to the contrary, Shelden inserts the inner cannula into Shelden’s
15
Appeal 2015-007300
Application 11/886,587
outer cannula after the outer cannula is inserted into the trachea (FF 14).
Thus, Shelden fails to suggest the use of Shelden’s inner cannula as an
introducer that falls within the scope of Appellant’s claimed invention
(see id.', cf. App. Br. 27 (Claim 9 require, inter alia, “after the [outer] shaft is
properly located in the trachea of the patient, the introducer is removed
rearwardly from the [outer] shaft so that the bore of the [outer] shaft is free
to provide a gas passage to the trachea”); App. Br. 28 (“the introducer being
removable rearwardly from the [outer] shaft so that the bore of the [outer]
shaft is opened to provide a gas passage to the trachea after the [outer] shaft
is properly located in the trachea of the patient”)).
Examiner failed to establish that Weinstein alone, or in combination
with Toye, makes up for the foregoing deficiency in the combination of
Crandall and Shelden (see FF 15—16). In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (“rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness”).
The combination of Miles and Crandall, with or without Toye, Theis, or
Weinstein'.
Based on the combination of Miles and Crandall, Examiner concludes
that, at the time Appellants’ invention was made, it would have been prima
facie obvious
to provide the shaft and introducer of Miles with cooperating
surface formations as taught by Crandall to provide a sealing
surface to provide a stop against excessive displacement of the
introducer past the shaft which would cause tracheal trauma and
16
Appeal 2015-007300
Application 11/886,587
to prevent the shaft from sliding rearward over the obturator for
better placement.
(Ans. 7.) In addition, Examiner concludes that, at the time Appellants’
invention was made, it would have been prima facie obvious to: “modify
the shaft [suggested by the combination] of Miles [and Crandall] with the
ultra-flexible shaft of Toye to provide additional comfort to a user;” “modify
the neck plate [suggested by the combination] of Miles [and Crandall] with
the axially moveable neck plate as taught by Theis to provide adjustments to
adapt to the thickness of the neck of the patient as taught by Theis;” and “to
provide the guide member [suggested by the combination] of [] Miles [and
Crandall] with straight and curved sections as taught by Weinstein to
provide enhanced curvature to facilitate passage into the trachea” (Ans. 8—
9). We are not persuaded.
Miles discloses the use of an “obturator,” or introducer, to
atraumatically introduce a tracheostomy tube into a patient (FF 17—23). In
this regard, Miles discloses that both the obturator and tracheostomy tube
comprise flanged proximal ends, wherein the flanged proximal end of the
obturator abuts the flanged proximal end of the tracheostomy tube when the
obturator is disposed inside the tracheostomy tube (see FF 21 and 23). As
Appellant explains correctly, notwithstanding Examiner’s contention to the
contrary, “it would not be obvious to a person skilled in the art to modify the
Miles device as per the suggestion by the Examiner, as there is already
means,” specifically, flanges 16 and 17 present on the tracheostomy tube and
obturator respectively, that prevent rearward displacement of the
tracheostomy tube along the obturator as they are inserted into a patient’s
trachea (see App. Br. 23; FF 18, 19, and 21; see also Reply Br. 12
(Examiner [] failed to provide a reasonable explanation and/or motivation on
17
Appeal 2015-007300
Application 11/886,587
how Crandall and Miles could be combined in the manner as alleged by the
Examiner”)).
In addition, for the reasons discussed above, Examiner failed to
establish an evidentiary basis on this record to support a conclusion that an
inner cannula, as suggested by Crandall, which may extend about 0.050
inches beyond the distal tip of an outer cannula, such as Miles’ tracheostomy
tube, would have been capable of performing the function of an introducer
as required by Appellant’s claimed invention and/or an obturator as required
by Miles’ disclosure (see e.g., FF 6, 8, and 17—23; see also Reply Br. 12—
13).
Examiner further failed to establish that any of Toye, Theis, or
Weinstein make up for the deficiencies in the combination of Miles and
Crandall discussed above (see FF 15, 16, and 24).
CONCFUSION OF FAW
The preponderance of evidence relied upon by Examiner fails to
support a conclusion of obviousness.
The rejection of claims 9-11, 13—18, and 20—22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Crandall, Shelden, and
Weinstein is reversed.
The rejection of claims 12 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Crandall, Shelden, Weinstein, and
Toye is reversed.
The rejection of claims 9-11, 13, 16—18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Miles and Crandall is
reversed.
18
Appeal 2015-007300
Application 11/886,587
The rejection of claims 12 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Miles, Crandall, and Toye is reversed.
The rejection of claims 14 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Miles, Crandall, and Theis is reversed.
The rejection of claims 15 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Miles, Crandall, and Weinstein is
reversed.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
19