Appeal No. 95-2607
Application No. 07/990,098
the appellant and the examiner concerning the above noted
rejection.
For the reasons which follow, this rejection cannot be
sustained.
As well explained and thoroughly detailed by the appellant
in the Brief and Reply Brief, Hein contains no teaching or
suggestion concerning the here claimed punch and the dimensions
thereof. Further, we completely agree with the appellant that
patentee’s resilient bulb syringe could not be reasonably
considered as even capable of performing a punch function. This
incapability is evinced by several aspects of the patent device
including the manner in which the nozzle (which the examiner
equates to the here claimed punch) readily demounts from the bowl
seat (e.g., see lines 42 through 47 in column 2), the angled
nozzle embodiments shown in Figures 2 and 3 and the fact that
patentee’s preferred nozzle is made of resilient rubber (see
lines 15 through 17 in column 5), all of which militate against a
punching function.
In short, a mature and objective study of the Hein patent
reveals that patentee’s resilient bulb syringe is the type of
syringe that is used for irrigation purposes rather than a
hypodermic syringe used for injection purposes. Thus, we find
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007