Ex Parte Worley

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 20, 2011

11348199 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 20, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BRIAN D. WORLEY
____________

Appeal 2009-012061
Application 11/348,199
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MICHAEL W. O’NEILL, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
KEN B. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-012061
Application 11/348,199

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Brian Worley (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) claims 1-8, 11, and
12 as anticipated by Stuart (US 5,390,669, issued Feb. 21, 1995).1 Claims 9,
10, and 13-16 have been withdrawn by the Examiner. We have jurisdiction
over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to a coupling 160 for connecting a
ventilator tube to a tracheotomy tube. Spec. 4, ll. 2-3 and fig. 4.
Claim 1 is representative of the claimed invention and reads as
follows:
1. For connecting a ventilator tube having a connector at a leading
end thereof to a tubular extension at a trailing end of a tracheotomy
tube, a coupling comprising:
a tubular member;
means on a trailing end of said tubular member for connecting
said trailing end of said tubular member in a pneumatic flow path to
the ventilator tube leading end connector;
means on a leading end of said tubular member for mating said
leading end of said tubular member in said pneumatic flow path with
the tubular extension of the tracheotomy tube by motion of said
mating means in a generally axial direction relative to the tubular
extension; and
means on said means for mating for engaging with the
tracheotomy tube during mating to prevent said leading end of said
tubular member from axially displacing from the tubular extension
after mating.

1 The rejection of claims 4-6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite, has been withdrawn by the Examiner. Ans. 2.
Appeal 2009-012061
Application 11/348,199

3
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.

ANALYSIS
Appellant has not presented arguments for the patentability of claims
2-8, 11, and 12 apart from claim 1. Br. 7-9. Therefore, in accordance with
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we select claim 1 as the representative claim to
decide the appeal of the rejection of these claims, with claims 2-8, 11, and
12 standing or falling with claim 1.
Appellant argues that because in Stuart the connector 21 is frictionally
fitted to tubular extension 28, Stuart fails to teach “engaging the connector
21 to the tubular extension 28 to prevent axial displacement of these
elements.” Br. 9. However, as far as we can tell, Appellant appears to have
misunderstood the Examiner’s reading of the teachings of Stuart.
The Examiner found, and we agree, that: (1) locking device 32 meets
the claimed tubular member; (2) hook securing collar 29 meets the claimed
tubular extension at a trailing end of a tracheotomy tube (outer cannula 12
and inner cannula 14) 2; (3) connector head 28 meets the claimed means for
connecting the trailing end of the tubular member (locking device 32) to the
ventilator tube connector (ventilator connector 21); (4) handle 19 (which
includes hinge 33) meets the claimed means for mating the leading end of
the tubular member (locking device 32) to the tubular extension of a
tracheotomy tube (hook securing collar 29); and (5) hooks 27 meet the
claimed means for preventing the leading end of the tubular member

2 Parenthetical nomenclature to Stuart.
Appeal 2009-012061
Application 11/348,199

4
(locking device 32) from axially displacing from the tubular extension (hook
securing collar 29). Ans. 3-4.
Hence, in contrast to Appellant’s argument, the means that prevent
axial displacement between the leading end of the tubular member 32 of
Stuart and the tubular extension 29 at the trailing end of the tracheotomy
tube 12, 14 constitute the hooks 27. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner,
that hooks 27 prevent the leading end of tubular member 32 from axially
displacing from the tubular extension 29. See Ans. 7.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth supra, the rejection of claim 1,
and claims 2-8, 11, and 12 standing or falling with claim 1, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Stuart is sustained.

SUMMARY
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-8, 11, and 12 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

mls