Appeal No. 1998-2183
Application No. 08/529,195
appellants' claimed invention, the anticipation rejection is
not sound and must be reversed.
As to the respective rejections of appellants' claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we likewise conclude that they are not
sustainable. Independent claims 13 and 24 stand rejected
based upon the Sudo teaching alone. Consistent with our
earlier stated views, we do not perceive that the Sudo
teaching alone would have suggested the syringe of claims 13
and 24. Simply as an example of the deficiency of Sudo alone
relative to the content of the independent claims, we do not
discern any suggestion in this reference for a protective cap
of soft material covering an injection needle so that the
needle pierces the protective cap and is thereby sealed. The
respective teachings of Cloyd, Meyer, and Onohara do not
overcome the deficiency of the Sudo teaching as it pertains to
the subject matter of independent claims 13 and 24.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
We remand this application to the examiner to consider
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007