Appeal No. 2000-1763 Page 9
Application No. 09/227,037
structure. While the claims are not specific as to the procedure used in carrying out these
forming steps, one need only look to the appellant's specification (column 5, lines 6-17) for at
least one example of how to do so. Therefore, it is our opinion that the specification contains
sufficient disclosure so as to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the appellant's
claimed invention.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain rejection (3).
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
We remand this reissue application to the examiner for consideration of the patentability
of the appellant's claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 in light of the following comments
with regard to the breadth of these claims.
We observe that the claims presented in this reissue application, and claim 15 in
particular, are directed merely to forming a tubular device comprising a pliable elongate tube of
a first resilient material and a tube-support structure of a second material having a stiffness and
surface hardness greater than that of the tube, with a first passageway formed by the tube and a
second passageway formed by the tube and tube-support structure. While each of the claims
recites that the tubular device is adapted for releasable and sealing connection to a medical
instrument having a nipple and the first material is sufficiently pliable to form a seal around the
nipple, none of the claims requires a step of so connecting the tubular device to such a medical
instrument.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007