Appeal No. 2000-0526
Application No. 08/818,958
inconsistency between the preamble and body of claim 2, one of
ordinary skill in the art cannot determine with any certainty
whether the claim is directed to a method of sequestering gas
from therapeutic fluid or to a method of sequestering gas from
therapeutic fluid and injecting the therapeutic fluid. Claims
3, 9 and 10 depend, either directly or indirectly, from claim
2 and are likewise indefinite.
Claim 9 recites an additional step of "forming the body
portion . . ." which is directed to a process for forming a
syringe, rather than a method for sequestering gas from
therapeutic fluid in a plungerless syringe, as recited in the
preamble. This inconsistency between the preamble and body of
the claim further confuses the scope of the claim, in that it
is not clear whether the claim is directed to a method of
forming a plungerless syringe or sequestering gas from
therapeutic fluid in a syringe (and injecting the fluid).
Claim 2 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine
of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable
over claims 13 and 14 of the Farris I patent in view of Farris
II.
27
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007