Appeal No. 96-3693
Application 08/360,109
recited in the first portion of claim 1, the only independent
claim on appeal, which portion reads (emphasis added):
A hypodermic needle and syringe assembly
having adhered to the syringe a single bodied
hollow bulb shaped flexible needle cover [,]
said needle cover comprising
In response to the limitations argued by appellants,
the examiner asserts that the "recitation of 'adhered to the
syringe' does not structurally define over the removable sliding
attachment of Bloch" (answer, page 2). He does not explain how
Bloch meets the "single bodied" limitation.
First considering the "adhered" limitation, we do not
agree with the examiner that it does not "structurally define"
over Bloch, and therefore, presumably, may be ignored in deter-
mining patentability. It is well settled that "[i]t is error to
ignore specific limitations distinguishing over the references."
In re Glass, 472 F.2d 1388, 1392, 176 USPQ 489, 491 (CCPA 1973).
In the present case, appellants are claiming the combination of a
hypodermic needle, syringe and needle cover, and the recitation
that the needle cover is "adhered" to the syringe requires that
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007