Appeal No. 97-2908
Application 08/347,201
whereas the open cavities or chambers of Freeman and
Nicko clearly were never intended to function in this manner.
Further, the barrier layer 26 of Zackheim is, in effect,
physically and bodily removed from the container prior to
insertion of the cannula (see Figure 7), whereas the
diaphragms of Freeman and Nicko are pierced by the cannula.
From our perspective, at best, Freeman and Nicko would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that the flat
member 24 of Zackheim might somehow be modified to provide an
annular portion on the lower surface thereof that extends into
the neck of the container to hold it in place. However, such
a modification clearly would not result in the subject matter
called for in the independent claims on appeal.
In light of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
standing rejection of claims claim 5, 7, 14 and 20 as being
unpatentable over Zackheim in view of Freeman or Nicko.
Concerning the rejection of claims 8-10 as being
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007