Appeal No. 96-2266
Application 08/156,794
function. Contrary to the examiner’s statement on page 2 of
the final rejection (Paper No. 12), in determining whether
claim 1 is anticipated by Christian one cannot look at the
structure disclosed by Christian absent the intended use,
since the claimed structure is defined by the means plus its
function (intended use).
We therefore conclude that claim 1 is not anticipated by
Christian. Claim 2, dependent on claim 1, and claim 26 are
likewise not anticipated. Rejection (1) will not be
sustained.
Rejection (2)
The secondary reference applied in this rejection,
Thomas, discloses a needle 11 having a catheter 15 thereover
and connected to a blood detecting chamber 14. After the
needle and catheter have been inserted into a blood vessel,
the needle may be withdrawn and an appropriate administration
set or other device attached to the free end (hub 16) of the
catheter. The examiner takes the position that it would have
been obvious to utilize the Thomas needle-catheter assembly by
insertion through the valve 11 of the apparatus of Christian
(final rejection, page 2; answer, page 4).
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007