Appeal No. 97-0773
Application No. 08/101,391
longer length of catheter is required, which would be the case in
central applications. In this regard, we find no recitation in
the Guttman patent which would suggest to the artisan that its
use is restricted to peripheral applications, nor has the
appellant provided evidence which would support such a position.
The fact that Guttman discloses a hub on the proximal end of
the catheter does not negate the above conclusion. It is our
opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art, having been taught
by Guttman that the catheter can be of “any length desired,”
would have understood that the hub must be located a sufficient
distance from the distal end of the catheter as not to foreclose
inserting the “length desired” into the vascular system. Thus,
the mere fact that the Guttman catheter is equipped with a hub
does not mean that it is limited to peripheral applications.
Guttman discloses a boreless needle 11 installed in the
distal end of the catheter, whereas claim 1 requires that the
needle be a cannula. However, at the time of the appellant’s
invention it also was known to utilize cannulae for this purpose,
as evidenced by Monestere and Vaillancourt ‘675. It is our view
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious
to replace the boreless needle of Guttman with a cannula, for the
well-known advantage of allowing flashback to a flash chamber as
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007