Appeal No. 96-3935
Application 08/209,673
Claims 2 through 5 and 41 through 48 depend from claim 40 and thus include all the limitations
of the independent claim. Since Wozniak does not disclose or teach the viscoelastic memory means as
defined in appellants’ claim 40, it follows that the examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2 through 5
and 41 through 48 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) will also not be sustained.
Claim 6 is an independent claim which defines a viscoelastic memory flow control valve for use
in an auto-destruct injection device. More specifically, the claim sets forth that the viscoelastic memory
flow control valve comprises “the memory means as recited in claim 44.” Claim 44 depends through a
chain of claims (i.e., claims 43, 42, 41) to independent claim 40. Thus, claim 6 also includes all of the
limitations of claim 40 and, for the same reasons as have been set forth above with regard to claim 40,
the examiner’s rejection of claim 6 (and claim 7 which depends therefrom) under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Wozniak will likewise not be sustained.
Claims 8 through 10 stand rejected by the examiner under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Popular Science Dec. 1989 or July 1989 in view of Wozniak. Claims 8 through 10
depend from claim 6 and add to this claim that the first configuration is a solid and that the second
configuration comprises a solid with a flow orifice (claim 8). Claim 9 specifies that the solid of claim 8
is a disk, while claim 10 provides further limitation on the size of the flow orifice of the disk. The
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007