Ex Parte SMEDEGAARD et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2001-2669                                                        
          Application 09/043,950                                                      

          for mounting on a syringe” (specification, page 1).                         
          Representative claim 1 reads as follows:                                    
               1.  A needle assembly comprising an injection needle and a             
          needle hub mountable on a syringe, wherein said hub includes a              
          center portion securing said injection needle in said hub,                  
          wherein said needle has an injection part projecting axially from           
          said center portion and terminating in a skin piercing obliquely            
          cut end, where the length of the injection part lies in the                 
          interval 4-6 mm.                                                            
                                   THE PRIOR ART                                      
               The references relied on by the examiner to support the                
          final rejection are:                                                        
          Crossman                   5,015,235                May 14, 1991            
          Rufenacht & Latchaw, “Table 5. Conversion Chart for MM, Inch,               
          French, and Gauge,” p. 256, (Rufenacht)1                                    
                                   THE REJECTIONS                                     
               Claims 1 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as              
          being anticipated by Crossman.                                              
               Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being              
          unpatentable over Crossman in view of Rufenacht.                            
               Attention is directed to the appellants’ main and reply                
          briefs (Paper Nos. 13 and 16) and to the examiner’s final                   


               1 Although the copy of the Rufenacht reference which is of             
          record does not bear a publication date, the appellants do not              
          dispute that it is prior art with respect to the claimed                    
          invention.                                                                  
                                          2                                           



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007