Appeal No. 1999-2329
Application 08/642,278
The claims on appeal are drawn to a method for using
medical tubing for infusing therapeutic fluids to a patient,
and are reproduced in the appendix of appellants’ brief. 2
The references applied in the final rejection are:
Fairchild et al. (Fairchild) 5,032,112 Jul.
16, 1991
Fanselow et al. (Fanselow) 5,562,127 Oct. 8,
1996
(Filed Jul. 18,
1995)
The appealed claims stand finally rejected on the
following grounds:
(1) Claims 1 and 6 to 9, anticipated by Fanselow, under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ; 3
(2) Claims 10, unpatentable over Fanselow under either
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) or § 103(a);
(3) Claims 1 to 5, unpatentable over Fairchild in view
2 References herein to appellants’ brief are to the
corrected brief filed on Nov. 9, 1998 (Paper No. 19).
3Although the examiner states that the anticipation
rejections were under § 102(b), it is evident that § 102(e)
was intended, since the Fanselow patent is based on an
application which was filed before, but issued after
appellants’ filing date.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007