Appeal No. 2000-1995
Application No. 08/850,277
The item relied on by the appellant as evidence of non-
obviousness is:
The 37 CFR § 1.132 Declaration of David S. Utterberg filed
November 9, 1998 (Paper No. 8).
THE REJECTION
Claims 1 through 8, 10 through 12 and 14 through 19 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Utterberg in view of Reed.
Attention is directed to the appellant’s main and reply
briefs (Paper Nos. 12 and 14) and to the examiner’s answer
(Paper No. 13) for the respective positions of the appellant
and the examiner with regard to the merits of this rejection.2
DISCUSSION
Utterberg, the examiner’s primary reference, discloses a
hemodialysis arterial blood flow set 10 comprising a connector
12 for connecting the set to a patient, tubing 16, a negative
2The examiner’s refusal to consider and respond to
certain arguments advanced in the main brief because they
allegedly were being presented for the first time (see page 7
in the answer) has no basis in USPTO practice.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007