Appeal No. 96-4107
Application No. 08/368,262
appellant’s invention is intended to be used with
“conventional” compressible IV bags and “conventional” IV
catheters (page 9, line 25 et seq.). See also page 1, line 20
et seq. and page 3, line 17 et seq.. This being the case, we
shall interpret the phrase “size and shape of a syringe tip
such that it can friction fit inside the hub of an IV
catheter” as relating to the conventional, or standard, IV
catheter utilized in the field, which has a hub of dimensions
known to one of ordinary skill in the art (the “luer” hub), of
the existence of which we take official notice. The examiner
did not so limit the meaning of this phraseology.
The Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
We have evaluated these rejections on the basis that
anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, either expressly or under principles of
inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention.
See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480-81, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675
(Fed. Cir. 1994).
Independent claim 1 stands rejected as being anticipated
by Harvey, Harrison, or Adolf. This claim requires a
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007