Appeal No. 97-1030
Application 08/368,261
OPINION
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
Independent claims 1, 4 and 7 stand rejected as being
anticipated by Kensey. It is axiomatic that anticipation is
established only when a single prior art reference discloses,
either expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and
every element of the claimed invention. See In re Paulsen, 30
F.3d 1475, 1480-1481, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and
In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir.
1990).
Kensey discloses a device for irrigating a body orifice. It
comprises a threaded cap having threads at one end for attachment
to a container and a nozzle at the other end which attaches to a
conduit (Figure 1). The appellant argues that the claim requires
that the nozzle have the size and shape of a syringe tip such
that it can friction fit inside the hub of a standard IV
catheter, and that such is not taught by Kensey. The examiner’s2
2From the appellant’s specification (page 9) and the
arguments in the Brief (page 6), we understand that there is a
conventional or “standard” IV catheter in the field, which has a
“luer” hub. We further note that “standard” appears as a
modifier for “IV catheter” in all of the claims except claim 1,
but we shall interpret claim 1 in the same fashion because it is
our belief that the appellant so intended. However, we suggest
that consideration be given to adding this term to claim 1, also.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007