Appeal No. 97-0773
Application No. 08/101,391
(see In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966)
and In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA
1968)).
Claim 1 is directed to “[a] vascular/venous access system”
comprising a flexible catheter having an axial bore therethrough
and “configured for use in central applications,” and a needle
cannula disposed within the bore adjacent to the distal end of
the catheter with a sharp end extending beyond the distal end of
the catheter and the opposite end extending through the wall of
the catheter between the distal and the proximal ends. It is the
examiner’s position that Guttman discloses all of the structure
recited in claim 1, except for the hollow needle, a feature which
would have been obvious to add in view of the teachings of
Monestere. Insofar as claim 1 is concerned, the thrust of the
appellant’s arguments is that the Guttman catheter is not
“configured for use in central applications,” which require a
much greater length than catheters not intended for such use, and
that Guttman has a hub, which limits its length so that it can be
used only in peripheral applications.
Guttman certainly discloses a “vascular/venous access
system.” In the embodiment shown in Figure 5, this system
comprises a flexible catheter 31 having a distal end and a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007