Appeal No. 97-1030
Application 08/368,261
shape as to friction fit the inside of the hub of a standard IV
catheter. To the extent that the examiner’s comments are
intended to mean he considers that it would have been obvious to
modify Kensey so that the nozzle would meet this condition, we
fail to perceive any teaching, suggestion or incentive which
would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to do so.
Schwartz was cited for its teaching of “the attachment of a
tube/catheter to a fluid source for the purpose of irrigation”
(Paper No. 5, page 3). Be that as it may, Schwartz does not, in
our view, cure the deficiency present in Kensey, for it clearly
does not disclose a “standard” IV catheter, nor does it suggest
that such is usable with its irrigation apparatus. In fact, the
opposite is true, for the catheter disclosed in Schwartz is a
very specialized one.
The combined teachings of Kensey and Schwartz fail to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the
subject matter of claims 5 and 8.
Claims 2, 3, 6 and 9 have been rejected on the basis of
Kensey in view of Hyans, the latter being cited for its
disclosure of a fill tube having a plurality of annular ridges
for enhancing the security of connecting it to a tube (Figure 4).
The claims in issue here contain the limitation regarding the fit
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007