Ex parte ESROCK - Page 10




               Appeal No. 2000-1763                                                                       Page 10                 
               Application No. 09/227,037                                                                                         


                      Merely by way of example, U.S. Patent No. 5,167,623 , issued December 1, 1992 to3                                                 

               Cianci et al., discloses a multi-lumen catheter (tubular device) comprising an outer tube 18 and                   
               an inner tube 20 made of a softer material than that of the outer tube 18 (abstract and column 3,                  
               lines 5-13).  A lumen 24 is defined between the inner wall 26 of the outer tube 18 and the                         
               outer wall 28 of the inner tube 20 and extends throughout the entire length of the tube 18.                        
               Additional lumens 30, 32 are defined by the inner tube 20 (column 3, lines 14-24).  While the                      
               Cianci patent does not disclose the details of forming the tubes 18 and 20 so as to form the                       
               multi-lumen catheter, other than to mention that the lumens 30, 32 may be formed by extrusion,                     
               the steps of forming the tube 20 from a first soft material and the tube 18 from a less soft                       
               second material (as broadly recited in claim 15) must inherently be included in the method of                      
               forming.  While the inner tube 20 is not disclosed as forming a seal around a nipple for sealing                   
               against fluid leakage, the relatively soft inner tube 20 appears to us to be capable of forming                    
               such a seal around a nipple of appropriate size, material and surface characteristics.  Thus, this                 
               application is remanded to the examiner for consideration, on the record, of the patentability of                  
               the appellant's claims (particularly claim 15) over the Cianci patent (either alone or in                          
               combination with other prior art references) or other prior art references.                                        






                      3This patent was cited by the appellant in Paper No. 4 during prosecution of the application for patent.    







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007