Appeal No. 96-3693
Application 08/360,109
there be something (e.g., glue) present in order to cause such
adhesion. Thus, even if we were to apply the2
examiner's reasoning, "adhered" could not be ignored because it
is a "structural" limitation. Since Bloch does not disclose,
either explicitly or inherently, any means for adhering needle
cover 11,13 to syringe 16, the anticipation rejection cannot be
sustained.
In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to consider
appellants' argument concerning the "single bodied" limitation.
Conclusion
The examiner's decision to reject claims 1 to 5 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed
REVERSED
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
2On page 3, lines 15 to 18, of the specification, appel-
lants disclose that the needle cover is adhered to the syringe
"by suitable adhesion means such as adhesives, pressure-sensitive
adhesives, or mechanical means such as ribs or bands."
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007