Appeal No. 96-4107
Application No. 08/368,262
The opposing viewpoints of the appellant are set forth in
the Brief and the Reply Brief.
OPINION
Before evaluating the patentability of the claims in view
of the prior art applied against them, it is necessary for us
to interpret some of the terminology utilized in the claims.
The first of these issues concerns the meaning to be
applied to the term “connector,” as used in the claims. The
appellant’s invention is directed to a “connector” for use in
irrigating a wound or in lavage irrigation. In use, the
connector is attached on the one hand to a bag of IV fluid and
on the other hand to either an IV catheter or a nasogastric
tube. In the paragraph bridging pages 8 and 9 of the
specification, the appellant explains his invention as
follows, with emphasis added:
Connector 10 includes a spiked end 12 shaped to fit
into and mate with the self-sealing outlet of a
conventional IV bag and a nozzle end 14 shaped the
same as a conventional IV syringe, so that a
conventional IV needle or IV catheter will friction
fit onto nozzle end 14 the same as on a IV syringe.
Nozzle end 14 also includes annular ridges 16 for
better securing of nasogastric tubing that might be
attached to nozzle 14.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007