Appeal No. 2000-0526
Application No. 08/818,958
supplied any evidence that it was known in the art at the time
of the appellant's invention to place the gas trap chamber of
a plungerless syringe on the rear wall, opposite the liquid
outlet. Having reviewed the teachings of Farris I as a whole,
we fail to perceive any teaching, suggestion or incentive
therein which would have motivated an artisan to modify the
Farris I syringe in such a fashion as to meet the terms of
claim 1. From our perspective, the only suggestion for
modifying the Farris I syringe to place the gas trap chamber
on the rear wall in the manner proposed by the examiner is
found in the luxury of hindsight accorded one who first viewed
the appellant's disclosure. This, of course, is not a proper
basis for a rejection. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266,
23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In light of the foregoing, we shall also not sustain the
examiner's rejection of claim 1, and claims 4-8 which depend
therefrom, as being unpatentable over Farris I.
Rejections (5) and (6)
The double patenting rejections are based on a judicially
created doctrine of double patenting grounded in public policy
so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007