Appeal No. 96-1819
Application 08/112,151
specification, results in an inexplicable inconsistency that
renders them indefinite.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which the appellant regards as the invention.
This claim depends on canceled claim 1 (i.e., a non-existent
claim) and it is thus unclear what subject matter the appellant
intended to cover.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as being directed to an nonenabling disclosure. There
is no disclosure of an embodiment having a “second mode” wherein,
on the one hand, the vacuum source is “disconnected and
disassociated” with the collecting means and the outlet port is
adapted for connection to the transfusion tubing but, on the
other hand, this same vacuum source is adapted for direct
connection to the drainage tubing and “is activated” to draw
fluid from the wound. Similarly, there is no disclosure of an
embodiment having a “second mode” wherein, on the one hand, the
outlet port is adapted for connection to the transfusion tubing
but, on the other hand, the vacuum source is adapted for direct
connection to the drainage tubing and “is activated” to draw
fluid from the wound as claim 10 sets forth.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007