Appeal No. 97-0773
Application No. 08/101,391
an indication that access has been achieved, which would have
been known to the artisan (see, for example, Monestere, column 2,
line 56 et seq.).
For the reasons expressed above, it is our opinion that the
teachings of the applied references establish a prima facie case
of obviousness with regard to the subject matter of independent
claim 23.
The appellant has taken the position that the subject matter
of dependent claims 24 and 26-28 is patentable over the prior art
relied upon “based upon the length of the catheter being
sufficient to facilitate use in central applications” (Brief,
page 5). As explained above, it is our opinion that this
requirement does not patentably distinguish over Guttman. This
being the case, we also will sustain the rejection of claims 24
and 26-28.
Claim 25 was separately argued. It requires that the length
of the catheter inserted into a patient “is not limited by a hub
so as to facilitate use in central applications.” The
appellant’s position is that this claim is not rendered obvious
by the applied prior art “based upon the omission of a hub”
(Brief, page 4). However, the language recited in the claim does
not omit a hub from the catheter, but requires that the catheter
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007