Appeal No. 96-4107
Application No. 08/368,262
fluid issuing from the catheter to properly irrigate a wound,
owing to the resistance to flow caused by the length of the IV
tubing and the relative narrowness of its opening even when
the IV bag was squeezed, and requiring considerable equipment
(pages 3 and 4). Then comes the explanation of the invention,
which solves these problems by eliminating the IV tubing in
favor of a compact device of injection-molded plastic having a
length of only about 6.8 cm, which is very short when compared
to the conventional IV tubing.
For the above reasons, we shall interpret the term
“connector” in the appellant’s claims as being limited in
scope to a device of such short length as to permit fluid
flowing therethrough to be pressurized to a pressure
sufficient to adequately irrigate a wound, such as the 7-8
psig recited in the appellant’s specification (page 4). In
view of the nature of the prior art devices cited by the
examiner against the claims, it would appear that he also
interpreted “connector” in this limited fashion, although such
is not explicitly stated on the record.
The second matter here concerns the size and shape of the
nozzle of the connector. The specification states that the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007