Appeal No. 2000-2045 Page 4
Application No. 09/206,253
reasonably have been expected to draw therefrom (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)).
The Rejection of Claims 15, 17-19 and 28-34
These claims stand rejected on the basis of Bates and Cornish.
The appellants’ invention pertains to tamper evident labels for medical containers.
Claim 15, the sole independent claim before us, is directed to a medical container
assembly. It is the examiner’s view that all of the subject matter recited in this claim is
disclosed by Bates, except that Bates discloses two tamper evident labels, each of which
contact only the removable top and the side of the container, whereas the claim requires
that a label be “wrapped completely around said medical container contacting said
removable and replaceable cap, at least a portion of said sides, and said bottom thereof.”
However, the examiner has taken the position that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to replace at least one of the Bates tamper-evident labels with a
label that is wrapped completely about the container, in view of the teachings of Cornish.
The appellants have set forth a number of arguments in opposition to the rejection of claim
15, however, we are not persuaded by them that the rejection should not stand.
The first of these arguments (Brief, page 5) is that even if the references were
combined they would not teach a label wrapped completely around a medical container
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007