Appeal No. 96-4139
Application 08/142,276
Turning to claim 2, the examiner finds claim 2 to be
indefinite because (answer page 3):
[I]t is unclear how or where the apparatus is attached.
Furthermore, the "substantially non-deformable article"
has been inferentially included in the claim. There-
fore, further limitations on this element are improper.
The rejection is further discussed on pages 5 and 6 of the
answer.
With regard to the question of where the recited apparatus
for injection is attached, we think it is evident that since
claim 1 recites a "base portion for attaching said hypodermic
needle to injection apparatus", the apparatus is attached to the
base portion. Secondly, the examiner seems to believe that it
is improper to claim "a needle pusher means . . . to move said
substantially non-deformable article" unless the "substantially
non-deformable article" is recited as part of the claimed
combination. However, under 35 USC § 112, sixth paragraph,2
appellants are entitled to claim the "needle pusher means" as a
means-plus-function, which is what they have done. Appellants'
non-inclusion of the "substantially non-deformable article"
In reviewing the claims, it does not appear that "substantially non-2
deformable" (claims 1 and 2) has antecedent basis in the specification, as
required by 37 CFR 1.175(d)(1).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007