Appeal No. 2000-0526
Application No. 08/818,958
2 on appeal. As the examiner has not provided any evidence
that the addition of such a step in the method of claim 13 or
14 of the Farris I patent would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the appellant's
invention, we are constrained to reverse the examiner's
rejection of claim 2 under the doctrine of obviousness-type
double patenting.
For the reasons which follow, however, we shall sustain
the examiner's rejection of claims 3, 9 and 10 under the
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
directed to an invention which is not patentably distinct from
the subject matter of the claims of the Farris I patent in
view of Farris II.
We note, at the outset, that none of claims 3, 9 and 10
requires that the air trap be located on the back wall. In
this regard, claim 2, from which claims 3, 9 and 10 depend,
recites merely that the syringe has an air trap "remote from a
fluid exit." Neither of claims 13 and 14 of the Farris I
patent expressly recites that the gas trap chamber is remote
from the liquid outlet. However, while the patent disclosure
may not be used as prior art in considering whether a claim in
20
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007