Appeal No. 96-2266
Application 08/156,794
the claims. As appellant points out at page 21 of his brief,
when the plug 20 (and needle 11) are removed from catheter hub
16, “blood can leak from the device until the proper equipment
is connected.” The combination of Christian and Thomas would
not, therefore, meet the limitation of parent claim 1 that the
connecting means is “fluidically sealed and self-sealing . . .
at all times during installation and operation of the
apparatus,” nor of claim 36 that “liquid based material is
prevented from escaping from the apparatus . . . during
installation and operation of the apparatus.”
We note that claim 36 also recites “a self-sealing
diaphragm fixedly attached to the second end [of the hollow
central portion to which the catheter is sealingly fixed],”
and “N side ports extending from said central portion.” These
limitations would clearly not be met if the examiner’s
proposed combination is to position the Thomas needle and
catheter through Christian’s valve 11, because the recited
“hollow central portion” would be Thomas’ hub 16, which has no
diaphragm valve or side ports. If the examiner intended to
state that it would have been obvious to insert Thomas’ needle
through valve 11 of Christian, utilizing Christian’s tube 42
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007