Appeal 2007-2559
Application 10/228,798
establishing a coiled structure” (emphasis added). We therefore reverse the
anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-12, and 14-16.
4. OBVIOUSNESS
Claims 9 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Vallelunga in view of Burns. Claims 9 and 17 depend from claims 1 and 10,
respectively. We have already concluded that the Examiner has not set forth
a prima facie case that Vallelunga anticipates claims 1 and 10.1 In addition,
the Examiner has not set forth sufficient basis to conclude that claims 1 and
10 would have been obvious over Vallelunga. The Examiner relies on Burns
for limitations recited in dependent claims, and has not pointed to any
disclosure in this reference that would make up for the deficiencies
discussed above. Thus, we conclude that the Examiner has not set forth a
prima facie case that claims 9 and 17 would have been obvious. We
therefore reverse the obviousness rejection of these claims.
OTHER ISSUES
For the reasons discussed above, we have concluded that the
Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case that Vallelunga anticipates the
claims. However, on return of this case, the Examiner should consider
whether it would have been obvious to replace the coil described in
Vallelunga with a coil established by a plurality of helical turns, such as the
helically coiled tube described in U.S. Patent No. 4,846,794 to Hertzer (of
record). If so, the Examiner should enter an obviousness rejection.
1 Like claim 1, claim 10 is an independent claim that is directed to a blood
collection set comprising, among other things, a “flexible tube including a
plurality of helical turns establishing a coiled structure.”
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013