Appeal No. 96-4107
Application No. 08/368,262
limitations which should be interpreted in the manner
explained immediately above, and which must be considered in
evaluating the patentability of the claims. See, e.g., In re
Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 957, 189 USPQ 149, 151-152 (CCPA 1976).
It therefore is our conclusion that none of the three
references applied discloses structure which anticipates the
subject matter of claim 1, for none show or describe a
connector having a nozzle with the required size and shape.
This being the case, we will not sustain this rejection.
Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected as being unpatentable over
Barrington or Thomas. Claim 2 adds to claim 1 a plurality of
annular ridges on the nozzle end of the connector for securing
a tube thereon, and claim 3 is an independent claim which
requires that the nozzle end have both the friction fit
configuration and the ridges. Barrington discloses a
connector (14) which has a piercing spike (44) on one end. At
the other end is a nozzle with ridges so that it can be
attached to tubing. However, as was the case in the
references cited against claim 1, there is no disclosure or
teaching that the other end of the connector is of the size
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007