Appeal No. 96-2270
Application 08/073,108
(4) Claim 36 as being unpatentable over Keller in view of
Baxter.
Rejections (1), (2) and (4)
It is the examiner’s position that:
Keller discloses the method and apparatus
substantially as claimed, however, Keller is silent as
to the intended use of cleaning medical containers with
suction ports therein.
As concerns this deficiency in intended use, it is the
Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art that if it was desired to clean
and reuse suction canisters that such a device as that
taught by Keller would have been utilized, as the device of
Keller is non-discriminatory as to what type of canister or
bottle it cleans. [Final rejection, page 3.]
From the above, it is readily apparent that the examiner is
simply dismissing the specific limitations as to the type of
container being cleaned as being a matter of “intended use”
since, in the examiner’s view, the device of Keller is “non-
discriminatory” as to the type of canister that it cleans. We
will not support the examiner’s position. All limitations in a
claim must be considered and it is error to ignore specific
limitations that distinguish over the references. See In re Boe,
505 F.2d 1297, 1299, 184 USPQ 38, 40 (CCPA 1974) and In re
Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007