Appeal No. 1999-2329
Application 08/642,278
of Fanselow, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Rejection (3)
We will first consider the rejection of claims 1 to 5
under § 103(a). Since appellants have grouped these claims
together
(brief, page 9), we select claim 1 from the group and will
decide this ground of rejection based thereon. 37 CFR §
1.192(c)(7).
The examiner, after summarizing the disclosures of
Fairchild and Fanselow, concludes on page 4 of the answer
that:
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
apply the tubing in Fanselow et al. to the infusion pump,
container, and clamp in Fairchild et al. in order to
provide fluid to a patient because the tubing in Fanselow
et al. is specifically designed to be used with infusion
pumps and because it can survive the long term abrasion
forces of infusion pumps and has high flexibility so that
it can be formed into tight loops and bends which are
important for delivery tube service.
The only arguments found in appellants’ brief and reply
brief in opposition to this ground of rejection are on page 15
of the brief, first and second full paragraphs, and in the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007