Appeal 2007-1993
Application 10/277,432
Richmond’s shortcoming in this regard. We therefore reverse the rejection
of claim 50 as being obvious over Richmond and Foran.
OTHER ISSUES
Adolf discloses a “sealed flexible solution container and an attached
port assembly that allows for the sterile dispensing of the solution” (Adolf,
abstract). Adolf therefore appears to disclose the container and port recited
in claim 1.
Adolf also discloses that a “penetrator element is slidably contained
within the tubular port and has a contained sharp end for slidably protruding
beyond the circumferential flange at the first open end of the tubular port
member so as to pierce the film surface and penetrate the sealed chamber”
(id. at col. 3, l. 65 to col. 4, l. 2; see also Figures 5 and 6, item 60). Adolf
therefore appears to meet claim 1’s limitation of a perforator movably
attached to the port.
Adolf also discloses that the port has a “removable cover 80 . . . for
closing and maintaining the sterility of the second open end 54 of the tubular
port” (id. at col. 6, l. 66 to col. 7, l. 2; see also Figure 5). As is evident from
Figure 5, the removable tab 80 and movable perforator 60 are
simultaneously attached to the port, as required by claim 1. Moreover, as
shown in Figures 9, 10, and 11, removal of the cover allows insertion of
means for urging the perforator into the bag, thereby piercing it (id. at
Figures 9, 10, and 11). Thus, detachment of Adolf’s cover appears to
“permit[ ] the perforator to pierce the film,” as recited in claim 1.
Thus, Adolf appears to disclose a device meeting all the limitations in
claim 1. Upon return of this case, the Examiner should consider whether
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013