Appeal No. 1998-1786 Page 5
Application No. 08/486,150
40, 42 through 46 and 67 through 69 with any reasonable
specificity, thereby allowing those claims to fall with claim
36 (see In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525,
1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
With respect to claim 36, the examiner first determined3
(final rejection, p. 2) that White teaches "a fluid sample
collection device as claimed by applicant, except the luer
fitting is male rather than female." The examiner then
determined (final rejection, p. 2) that
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to use a female luer fitting rather than a male
[luer fitting] as they are freely interchangeable among
elements to be joined together.
The appellants in their brief (pp. 7-11) and reply brief
(pp. 3-6) provide arguments as to why one of ordinary skill in
the art would not have changed White's female luer fitting to
a male luer fitting. We agree. In that regard, there is no
suggestion or motivation in the applied prior art (i.e.,
White, Kelley and Diamond) to have modified White's female
3The appellants have not contested this determination of
the examiner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007