Appeal No. 98-0177
Application No. 08/577,873
created doctrine of obviousness double patenting over claim 4
of U.S. Patent No. 5,531,323.
With respect to the anticipation rejection, appellants
argue that Thead has no hub wrenching member as defined in
claim 1. Appellants state that this feature alone prevents
Thead from anticipating appellants' claim. Furthermore,
appellants argue that it is impossible for a user to remove
Thead's needle by rotating the barrel alone. According to
appellants, the gears of Thead must be rotated for the needle
to drop into the container. See appellants' brief at page 6
for the details of these arguments. Attention is also
directed to page 2 of the reply brief where appellants
reiterate the impossibility argument.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejections on appeal in
light of the arguments made by the examiner and the
appellants. As a result of this review, we have determined
that the applied prior art patent to Thead anticipates
appellants' claims. Furthermore, we have determined that
appellants do not contest the double patenting rejection.
Therefore, the rejections of the claims on appeal will be
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007