Appeal No. 96-4107
Application No. 08/368,262
independent claims also require the particular nozzle end
configuration that has been discussed above, which includes
both the capability of friction fit to the inside of the hub
of an IV catheter and the annular ridges for receiving a
nasogastric tube. The teachings of Sozuki do not overcome the
deficiencies regarding the IV catheter attachment which we
have pointed out above with regard to Harvey and Harrison.
Nor, in our view, would Sozuki have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art that the nozzle end of the connector
be provided with the capability of attachment to either an IV
catheter or a nasogastric tube. The rejection therefore is
not sustained.
Finally, claims 7 and 8 are rejected as being
unpatentable over Harvey and Harrison, further in view of
Plechinger. While Plechinger teaches using a catheter for
irrigation, it is not a conventional IV catheter, but a
specialized two lumen device (column 3, lines 4 and 5). The
added reference does not cure the problems with the other two,
which have been discussed above. That being the case, this
rejection is not sustained.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007