Appeal No. 2001-2669
Application 09/043,950
by the examiner. Given the spatial relationship between the
needle 11, hub 12 and adjuster 15 shown in Crossman’s Figure 2, a
person of ordinary skill in the art would not view the adjuster
as a part of the center portion of the hub which secures the
needle as recited in claim 1.
Thus, Crossman does not disclose each and every element of
the needle assembly set forth in claim 1. Consequently, we shall
not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 1,
and dependent claim 3, as being anticipated by Crossman.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
In addition to not teaching a needle assembly meeting the
above noted limitations in claim 1, Crossman would not have
suggested same to a person having ordinary skill in the art. As
the Rufenacht reference does not cure this deficiency, we shall
not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 2,
which depends from claim 1, as being unpatentable over Crossman
in view of Rufenacht.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 3 is
reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007