Appeal No. 96-0957
Application 08/138,359
As a preliminary matter, we based our understanding of
the appealed subject matter upon the following interpretation of
the terminology appearing in the claims. In line 2 of claim 25 2
we interpret “said flexible portions” to be -- said compressible
portions --. In line 29 of claim 26 we interpret “the flexible
means” to be -- the flexible portion --.
We have carefully reviewed the appellant's invention as
described in the specification, the appealed claims, the prior
art applied by the examiner and the respective positions advanced
by the appellant in the brief and by the examiner in the answer.
This review leads us to conclude that the prior art relied on by
the examiner fails to establish the obviousness of the subject
matter defined by the claims on appeal.
According to the examiner, it would have been obvious
“to include the holding means disclosed in Quaas in the invention
disclosed in Feeney” (see answer, page 5). In support of this
position the answer states that
Feeney, Jr. and Quaas are concerned with
preventing unintended movement in a needle
2Reference to specific lines in the claims in this opinion
is with respect to the claims as they appear in the appendix to
the appellant’s brief.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007