Appeal No. 2000-0526
Application No. 08/818,958
For the foregoing reasons, the appellant's arguments fail
to persuade us that the examiner has committed error by
determining that Farris I anticipates the method recited in
claim 2. Accordingly, we shall sustain the examiner's
rejection of claim 2, and of claim 10 which falls therewith,3
as being anticipated by Farris I.
Rejection (2)
Claim 3 depends from claim 10 and further recites a step
of "bending closed a gas passageway which extends between the
gas trap and a fluid containing body portion of the syringe
just prior to the injecting step." The examiner concedes that
this step is not disclosed by Farris I. However, the examiner
notes that Farris I discloses that the main objective of the
plungerless deformable syringe is to trap gas so that it will
be prevented from being injected into the patient and that
Farris II discloses closing the gas chamber of a plungerless
deformable syringe prior to injection so the trapped air has
no chance at all of being injected into the patient. The
For the record, we note that Farris I discloses (column 4, lines 7-14)3
a step of initially (i.e., prior to positioning a needle or cannula on the tip
18a) removing a tab at the fluid exit, as required by claim 10.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007