Appeal No. 1996-2963 Page 9
Application 07/952,427
the independent claim (claim 6) on which they ultimately
depend (brief, page 7). However, appellants have not furnished
separate substantive arguments for claim 10. Rather,
appellants merely describe the contents of claim 10 (brief,
pages 14 and 15). We therefore limit our discussion to claim
8. See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1566 n.2, 37 USPQ2d 1127,
1129 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1995); 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) and
(c)(8)(1995).
The examiner relies on Measells in addition to the Mohr
and Meruelo references discussed above as evidence of the
obviousness of the subject matter at issue with respect to
this rejection. According to the examiner (answer, page 8),
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to provide the multi-layer tube
construction of Measells et al. in Mohr et al. in
view of Meruelo et al. in order that the tube would
have both strength and resistance to tackiness after
heat sterilization, no plasticizers, and would
minimize migration of materials into the contents of
the container, as taught by Measells et al. (col. 2,
lines 48-61).
Implicit in the examiner’s rejection is the finding that
it would have been obvious to use a tube as taught by Meruelo
(answer, page 6) and Measells (answer, page 8) in Mohr for use
with the blood bag container as taught by Meruelo (column 3,
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007