Appeal No. 2000-0526
Application No. 08/818,958
As discussed above, we find nothing in the disclosure of
Farris I, including the teaching that the gas trap chamber may
be positioned in various locations, which teaches, either
explicitly or under the theory of inherency, or would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art placing the gas
trap chamber on the back or rear wall of the syringe, at an
opposite end of the body from the fluid outlet, as recited in
claims 1 and 4-8 on appeal. For the foregoing reasons,
we shall not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1 and
4-8 under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as
being directed to an invention which is not patentably
distinct from the subject matter of claims 1-14 of the Farris
I patent.
Turning next to the examiner's rejection of method claim
2 under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as
being directed to an invention which is not patentably
distinct from the claims of the Farris I patent, we note that
patent claims 13 and 14, the only claims of the Farris I
patent directed to the method of injecting liquid with a
plungerless syringe, do not recite a step of docking the
syringe with a device at the fluid exit, as required by claim
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007